ROUTES TO RESILIENCE - indiaenvironmentportal...ROUTES TO RESILIENCE: INSIGHTS FROM BRACED TO...
Transcript of ROUTES TO RESILIENCE - indiaenvironmentportal...ROUTES TO RESILIENCE: INSIGHTS FROM BRACED TO...
ROUTES TO RESILIENCEINSIGHTS FROM BRACED TO BRACED-XLucy Faulkner and Paula Silva Villanueva
Synthesis paper
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Lucy Faulkner is a consultant working at Itad in the Climate Change
theme, and leads the BRACED Knowledge Manager Monitoring
and Results Reporting team. She has nine years’ experience in
community resilience and adaptation research and in the design
and delivery of monitoring and evaluation systems.
Paula Silva Villanueva is the director of ResilienceMonitor
and is the Senior Technical Advisor for the BRACED Knowledge
Manager Monitoring and Results Reporting team. Over the past
10 years she has developed a number of monitoring and evaluation
frameworks and systems in the field of climate change adaptation,
disaster risk reduction and sustainable development.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was written by Lucy Faulkner and Paula Silva Villanueva.
The authors wish to acknowledge members of the Knowledge Manager for
inputs into specific sections of the report, in particular Catherine Pettengell
(gender equality and adaptive capacity); Margherita Calderone and Jen Leavy
(3As analysis and transformation); Roop Singh (climate information); Kanmani
Venkateswaran and Dave Wilson (policy change); and Elisa Sandri and Ruth
Phillips Itty, for research support with the MRR deep dives. Their combined
inputs have been critical for deepening the analysis of the findings. We are also
grateful to all BRACED Implementing Partners, whose Year 4 annual reports and
deep dives provided the data and basis for this synthesis report, which could
not have been completed without their efforts. The report has benefitted from
critical review from Dave Wilson, Philippa Tadele, Emily Wilkinson and Derek
Poate (external review). Finally, we thank Amy Wilson and Rajeshree Sisodia
of the Knowledge Manager for their support in the publication process.
ContentsAcronyms� 3
Foreword� 5
Executive�summary� 7
1.�Introduction�and�background� 11
1.1�The�BRACED�programme�and�the�BRACED�extension� 11
1.2�The�Routes�to�Resilience�report� 12
1.3�Purpose�and�intended�users� 13
1.4�Report�structure� 15
2.�Methodology� 17
2.1�Making�sense�of�project�data� 17
2.2�Deep�dives� 18
2.3�Limitations� 20
3.�Resilience�outcomes:�what�has�been�achieved?� 22
3.1�Resilience�capacities� 23
3.2�Analysis�and�reflection� 28
4.�Transformational�impact:�what�has�been�achieved?� 35
4.1�Salient�results� 36
4.2�Analysis�and�reflection� 48
5.�What�does�the�evidence�tell�us�about�resilience?� 59
Annex�1:�Components�of�the�BRACED-X�programme� 68
Annex�2:�The�BRACED-X�projects� 69
Annex�3:�BRACED-X�Theory�of�Change� 70
Annex�4:�BRACED�M&E�‘infrastructure’� 71
Annex�5:�Analysis�from�project�to�programme�level� 72
Annex�6:�Project�screening�grid� 74
Annex�7:�MRR�deep�dive�informant�list� 75
Annex�8:�Policy�Areas�of�Change� 79
List�of�TablesTable�1:� Analytical�framework�for�programme�synthesis� 18
Table�2:��Capacity�outcomes�and�contributing�projects� 24
Table�3:���The�main�approaches�used�by�BRACED-X�projects�to�promote�� 43�the�potential�for�sustainability
List�of�BoxesBox�1:��� From�accessing�to�using�climate�information� 25
Box�2:��� Deep�dive�findings�in�focus�–�adaptive�capacity�and�sustainability�� 31�are�closely�linked
Box�3:��� Processes�that�affected�BRACED-X�projects’�ability�to�implement�� 32�in�set�timeframes
Box�4:��� Deep�dive�findings�in�focus�–�to�what�extent�can�consortia�projects�� 33�be�adaptive?
Box�5:��� Strategic�partnerships�impact�on�pastoralism�policy�in�the�Sahel� 40
Box�6:��� National-level�policy�engagement�and�the�effect�of�BRACED�� 42�on�policy�change
Box�7:��� The�multiplier�effect�of�private�sector�investment�delivering�� 45�potential�benefits�over�time
Box�8:��� Deep�dive�findings�in�focus�–�towards�a�more�transformative�� 49�resilience�agenda�
Box�9:��� What�can�we�learn�about�gender�and�other�equality�issues�� 50�from�pastoralist�inequality�in�Livestock�Mobility?
Box�10:��Deep�dive�findings�in�focus�–�challenges�in�defining�sustainability�� 56�and�what�should�persist
Acronyms3As�� � Absorb,�Anticipate�and�Adapt
AFD� � French�Development�Agency
ANICT� � National�Agency�for�Local�Government�Investment
ARD� � Regional�Development�Agency
ARS� � Annual�Reporting�Supplement
BRACED�� �Building�Resilience�and�Adaptation�to�Climate�Extremes�
and�Disasters
BRACED-X� BRACED�extension�period
BRES� � �Building�Resilience�by�Changing�Farming,�Forestry�
and�Early�Warning�Practices�(BRACED-X�project)
CEO� � Chief�Executive�Officer
CIARE� � �Climate�Information�and�Assets�for�Resilience�in�Ethiopia�
(BRACED�project)
CILSS� � �Permanent�Interstate�Committee�for�Drought�Control�
in�the�Sahel
CMESA-E� �Climate�and�Meteorological�Service�Advancement�in�Ethiopia�
(BRACED-X�project)
CPA� � Commercial�Pocket�Approach
DCF� � Decentralising�Climate�Funds�(BRACED-X�project)
DFID� � Department�for�International�Development�(UK)
DRR� � Disaster�Risk�Reduction
EU� � � European�Union
FM�� � Fund�Manager
GCA� � Global�Commission�on�Adaptation
GCF� � Green�Climate�Fund
GIZ�� � German�Development�Corporation
IP� � � Implementing�Partner
KM�� � Knowledge�Manager
LAPA� � Local�Adaptation�Plan�of�Action
M&E� � Monitoring�and�Evaluation
MAR� � Market�Approaches�to�Resilience�(BRACED-X�project)
MRR� � Monitoring�and�Results�Reporting
NFCS� � National�Framework�for�Climate�Services
NGO� � Non-Governmental�Organisation
NNL� � Nourishing�Nomads�Limited
PASA� � Food�Security�Support�Project
PEPISAO� �Integrated�and�Sustainable�Livestock�Farming�and�Pastoralism�
in�West�Africa�Project
PRAPS� � Regional�Sahel�Pastoralism�Support�Project
PREDIP�� �Regional�Dialogue�and�Investment�Program�for�Pastoralism�and�
Transhumance�in�the�Sahel�and�Coastal�Countries�of�West�Africa
PRORESA� Strengthening�Food�Security�Project
PSP� � Private�Service�Provider
RTR� � Routes�to�Resilience
SACCO� � Savings�and�Credit�Cooperative
SDG� � Sustainable�Development�Goal
SILC� � Saving�and�Internal�Lending�Community
SUR1M�� �Scaling�up�Resilience�to�Climate�Extremes�for�over�1�Million�
People�(BRACED-X�project)
ToC�� � Theory�of�Change
UK�� � United�Kingdom
VSF-B� � Vétérinaires�Sans�Frontières�–�Belgium
VSLA� � Village�Savings�and�Loan�Association
WAPC� � Ward�Adaptation�Planning�Committee
WYL� � Waati�Yelema�Labenw�(BRACED-X�project)
5ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� Foreword
ForewordThis�report,�Routes�to�Resilience:�Insights�from�BRACED�to�BRACED-X,�arrives�
at�a�very�special�point�in�time.
It�comes�at�the�end�of�BRACED�(Building�Resilience�and�Adaptation�to�Climate�
Extremes�and�Disasters),�the�single�biggest�donor�investment�in�resilience�of�
vulnerable�groups�in�fragile�contexts�in�the�face�of�rising�climate�and�disaster�
risks.�The�world�has�been�watching�what�can�be�achieved�in�difficult�contexts,�
operating�locally�but�aiming�for�results�at�scale.�Now�is�the�time�to�look�back�
and�see�what�has�been�achieved,�and�what�we�have�learnt�in�the�process.
It�is�also�a�time�of�unprecedented�awareness�of�the�way�risks�are�rising,�
not�just�in�the�most�fragile�contexts�but�everywhere�around�the�world,�as�
demonstrated�by�costly�and�deadly�events�in�recent�memory�such�as�Hurricane�
Harvey�(US$100�billion�damages,�three�times�more�likely�owing�to�climate�
change),�or�the�recent�killer�heatwave�in�Europe�(at�least�five�times�more�likely�
owing�to�climate�change).�The�Intergovernmental�Panel�on�Climate�Change�has�
long�been�clear�that,�while�these�Western�disasters�capture�more�attention,�
the�most�vulnerable�groups,�especially�in�fragile�contexts,�are�hit�hardest�
by�the�rising�risks.
Furthermore,�it�comes�at�a�time�of�a�very�strong�call�to�turn�the�tide.�Not�just�
the�rising�concentration�of�greenhouse�gases,�which�are�putting�us�on�track�for�
an�ever�more�volatile�climate,�but�also�the�inexcusable�lack�of�attention�to�these�
risks,�especially�in�the�most�vulnerable�contexts.�This�call�is�coming�not�just�from�
environmental�groups,�or�from�an�unprecedented�mobilisation�of�youth�around�
the�world;�but�also�from�the�highest�political�level.�To�raise�ambition�on�climate�
action,�UN�Secretary�General�Guterres�has�called�a�Climate�Summit�at�Head�of�
State�level,�coming�up�in�September�2019.
On�this�front�–�on�how�to�build�resilience�among�the�most�vulnerable�–�
BRACED�brings�some�of�the�most�detailed�and�concrete�examples�and�findings.�
These�findings�are�also�informing�the�Global�Commission�on�Adaptation�(GCA),�
chaired�by�former�UN�Secretary�General�Ban�Ki�Moon,�World�Bank�CEO�Kristalina�
Georgieva�and�Bill�Gates.�Just�ahead�of�the�Summit,�the�GCA�will�launch�its�
flagship�report�and�a�series�of�Action�Tracks,�which�aim�to�increase�political�
momentum�and�massively�scale�up�implementation�of�effective�adaptation,�
by�governments�all�around�the�world,�the�private�sector�and�civil�society.
We�are�proud�of�the�wealth�of�detailed�analysis�from�BRACED�that�can�be�used�
to�inform�political�decisions�and�guide�where�and�how�to�invest�in�the�resilience�
of�those�most�at�risk.
In�this�extension�year�of�BRACED,�we�have�looked�only�at�outcomes�–�
a�higher�bar�than�just�the�outputs�produced�by�the�projects�in�their�initial�
years.�We�wanted�to�see�to�what�extent�the�projects�have�in�fact�been�able�
to�build�anticipatory,�absorptive�and�adaptive�capacities,�and�the�extent�
to�which�transformational�change�has�occurred�in�the�process.�
6ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� Foreword
We�addressed�five�questions�in�particular:�
1.� What adaptive capacity outcomes are possible with more time?
2.� To what extent can consortia projects be adaptive?
3.� How can projects foster gender equality and build resilience?
4.� To what extent is policy change possible from the bottom up?
5.� How can sustainability be supported within the lifetime of a project?
The�report�in�front�of�you�provides�many�valuable�insights,�which�I�am�sure�
will�inform�the�inevitable�increase�in�attention�to�the�resilience�of�the�most�
vulnerable,�especially�in�fragile�contexts.
I�believe�the�report�will�be�a�treasure�trove�for�local,�national�and�international�
non-governmental�organisations�(NGOs)�that�are�supporting�communities�
in�fragile�contexts�and�want�to�learn�how�their�work�can�enhance�resilience.�
It�also�contains�some�warnings�and�lessons�learnt,�for�instance�regarding�
support�on�climate�services.�
But�it�should�also�be�of�value�to�governments�of�countries�affected�by�
rising�climate�risks,�which�are�wondering�how�to�reduce�the�risk�facing�
their�populations�in�the�most�effective�way.�There�are�many�messages�about�
partnerships,�and�the�respective�role�of�government�across�scales,�the�private�
sector�and�civil�society,�including�local�groups�right�at�the�community�level.
There�are�also�clear�messages�for�donors,�and�for�those�engaged�in�project�
and�programme�design.�For�instance,�three�years�is�a�short�time�to�expect�
transformational�results,�especially�when�the�target�population�comprises�the�
most�vulnerable�groups�(there�are�trade-offs�between�quick�wins�and�reaching�
the�poorest�people�in�the�most�fragile�contexts).�But�what�we�found�is�also�that�
it�is�not�just�about�time�but�also�about�timing.�Adaptive�management,�flexible�
decision�making�and�phased�approaches�can�help�achieve�better�results.�
I�would�like�to�thank�the�authors�of�this�report�for�their�detailed�and�valuable�
analysis,�but�also�many�others�who�have�contributed�to�these�findings,�including�
the�UK�Department�for�International�Development�for�its�support�to�such�
knowledge�management�over�and�above�the�immediate�project�implementation,�
and�last�but�not�least�the�NGOs�that�have�implemented�the�projects�and�the�
communities�and�partners�with�which�they�have�worked.�These�actors�have�
generated�a�great�deal�of�the�ideas�and�much�of�the�information�on�which�
our�analysis�is�based.�Our�BRACED�journey�is�ending�but�the�world’s�journey�
to�increase�resilience�in�a�changing�climate�is�only�just�starting�–�and�I�trust�
the�analysis�you�are�about�to�read�will�help�chart�an�effective�course.
Maarten�van�Aalst�
Director,�Red�Cross�Red�Crescent�Climate�Centre,��
and�Co-Chair�of�the�BRACED�Knowledge�Manager
7ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� executive summary
After�four�years�of�implementation,�this�report�presents�a�synthesis�of�the�
Building�Resilience�and�Adaptation�to�Climate�Extremes�and�Disasters�(BRACED)�
project�annual�reports,�and�evidence�from�four�deep�dives,�from�the�18-month�
extension,�referred�to�as�BRACED-X.
BRACED-X�started�in�January�2018,�following�immediately�on�from�BRACED.�
Its�purpose�was�to�consolidate�and�expand�work�already�completed,�with�the�
aim�to�foster�further�progress�towards�the�sustainability�of�the�programme’s�
outcomes.�Funding�was�organised�into�two�windows:�implementation�
and�policy,�with�nine�projects�out�of�BRACED’s�original�fifteen�selected�
for�the�extension.�These�projects�continue�to�work�across�eight�countries�
in�East�Africa,�the�Sahel�and�Asia.
Using�the�evidence�provided�by�Implementing�Partners�(IPs),�this�report�
examines�the�questions:�What has BRACED-X achieved and what does this mean
for future resilience programming? To�do�so,�the�report�challenges�assumptions�
underpinning�the�original�programme�Theory�of�Change�(ToC)�that�remain�
unanswered�from�BRACED,�yet�still�relevant�during�the�programme�extension.�
To�this�end,�five�sub-questions�are�addressed�in�detail:
1.� What adaptive capacity outcomes are possible with more time?
2.� To what extent can consortia projects be adaptive?
3.� How can projects foster gender equality and build resilience?
EXECUTIVE�SUMMARYimage: andrew mcconnell / Panos
8ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� executive summary
4.� To what extent is policy change possible from the bottom up?
5.� How can sustainability be supported within the lifetime of a project?
The�BRACED�extension�has�continued�to�contribute�to�resilience�capacities�and,�
to�a�lesser�extent,�to�transformational�changes.�A�detailed�account�of�what�has�
been�achieved,�and�analysis�and�reflection�on�findings�from�the�extension�phase,�
are�in��Section�3��and��Section�4�,�respectively.�Insight�into�what�the�evidence�
means�in�relation�to�the�BRACED-X�ToC�can�be�found�in��Section�5�.
Drawing�on�findings�from�across�the�nine�projects,�as�well�as�from�our�learning�
through�monitoring�BRACED�over�the�four-year�period,�we�present�five�key�
messages�that�are�a�continuation�of�our�understanding�about�what�it�really�takes�
to�build�the�resilience�of�the�most�vulnerable�to�climate�and�disaster�extremes.�
The�implications�of�these�key�messages�for�policy�and�practice�are�in��Section�5�.
Key�Message�1:�Sustainability,�in�resilience�terms,�is�about�the�ability�
to�adapt�as�things�change
The�uncertainty�that�comes�with�climatic�variability�and�extremes�
challenges�the�extent�to�which�choices�made�today�can�reduce�or�exacerbate�
current�or�future�vulnerability,�and�facilitate�or�constrain�future�responses.�
Hence�the�ultimate�measurement�of�sustainability�must�be�people�and�
institutions’�capacity�to�adapt�to�an�uncertain�future.�This�means�dealing�
not�only�with�climate�risks�that�are�known�and�already�identified,�but�also�
with�those�unforeseen�that�are�harder�to�prepare�for.�From�a�resilience�
perspective�therefore,�sustainability�is�not�just�about�maintaining�activities,�
but�is�also�about�the�ability�to�respond�flexibly�to�different�disturbances.�
To�this�end,�there�is�a�need�to�think�beyond�activities�that�support�adaptive�
capacity,�to�the�factors�and�processes�that�underpin�it�and�through�which�
sustainable�change�can�be�realised�over�time�(see��Section�4.2.3�).�This�means�
greater�attention�to�change�processes,�and�factors�such�as�trust,�or�types�of�
thinking�and�behaviour�that�enable�people�to�positively�adapt�is�needed.�
Moving�beyond�a�narrow�focus�on�the�continuity�of�activities�and�benefits�
after�projects�end�is�also�critical,�as�there�is�a�risk�that�such�a�definition�of�
sustainability�limits�the�extent�to�which�projects�move�beyond�conventional�
activities�towards�transformative,�risk-taking�interventions�that�challenge�
underlying�structural�and�socio-economic�inequalities.� �
Key�Message�2:�Transformational�approaches�are�not�optional;�they�are�
fundamental�to�strengthening�resilience
BRACED�expectations�included�working�at�scale�and�reaching�large�numbers�
of�people,�through�large�and�diverse�consortia,�while�also�addressing�the�
vulnerabilities�of�the�most�marginalised�and�leaving�no-one�behind.�Findings�
from�BRACED�demonstrate�that�these�are�not�wholly�incompatible�goals,�but�
they�certainly�merit�further�thought�and�clarity.�Overall,�the�findings�from�
the�extension�phase�demonstrate�that�resilience�programming�needs�to�be�
better�informed�by�robust�analysis�of�who�is�vulnerable�and�why,�and�design�
and�implement�transformational�approaches�that�tackle�inequality�directly�
if�people’s�resilience�is�to�be�improved�(see��Section�4.2.1�).�Results�stress�the�
9ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� executive summary
importance�of�making�an�analytical�distinction�between�projects�that�display�
‘social�inclusion’,�from�those�that�work�directly�with�the�most�vulnerable�as�a�key�
goal�for�resilience,�where�transforming�inequality�is�integral�to�project�design.�
Having�gender�or�vulnerability�as�an�‘add-on’�criterion�for�resilience�programming�
is�counterproductive,�as�it�incentivises�a�culture�of�‘high-number,�measurable�
impact�approaches’�and�inadvertently�steers�project�designs�towards�‘quick-win’�
activities�and�blanket�assessments�of�vulnerability.�While�programmes�may�tick�
all�of�the�boxes,�they�may�still�fall�short�of�delivering�adaptive�capacity�outcomes�
in�the�long�term�if�focus�remains�on�activities,�rather�than�also�on�the�linkages,�
processes�and�shifts�needed�to�facilitate�and�support�transformational�change.
Key�Message�3:�Beyond�policy�content,�it�is�the�timing�and�sequencing�
of�policy�engagement�work�at�multiple�scales�that�is�critical
BRACED�targeted�supporting�changes�in�policies,�political�discourse�and�
political�actors’�behaviours�that�were�favourable�towards�building�the�resilience�
of�vulnerable�populations.�However,�the�evidence�from�the�extension�phase�
suggests�that�policy�outcomes�have,�overall,�been�elusive,�notwithstanding�
some�successes�in�shorter-term�changes�in�knowledge�–�and�awareness-building,�
and�access�to�and�engagement�with�key�stakeholders,�which�are�requisite�steps�
on�a�policy�change�pathway�(see��Section�4.2.2�).�Knowledge�is�foundational�
for�building�the�shared�understanding�and�buy-in�required�for�policy�change,�
and�is�a�vital�resource�to�inform�policy�outcomes�when�proactively�used�for�
this�purpose.�Yet�a�primary�focus�on�knowledge-building�alone�will�not�lead�
to�substantially�improved�policies�that�benefit�those�at�risk�from�climate�shocks�
and�stresses.�Enacting�policy�change�requires�longer�term�engagement�or�direct�
facilitation�of�policy�development�in�the�short�term,�driven�simultaneously�from�
the�‘bottom�up’�and�‘top�down’,�with�relevant,�influential�actors�to�be�involved�
in�supporting�the�process.�Policy�change�must�also�be�supported�by�a�shift�in�
attitudes�of�policy�makers�towards�the�needs�and�capacities�of�marginalised�
people�and�the�inequitable�structures�that�underpin�their�vulnerability.�Measuring�
defined�progress�markers,�such�as�networks�built�at�individual�level,�likewise�
does�not�indicate�whether�policy�change�has�been�achieved.�IPs�have�built�
relationships�with�a�variety�of�stakeholders�and�obtained�endorsement�and�verbal�
commitments�around�the�policy�changes�they�want�to�bring�about.�Yet�these�
have�not�necessarily�resulted�in�policy�change.�Policies�need�to�be�acted�upon�in�
order�to�support�the�populations�BRACED�engaged�with,�and�the�long-term�effect�
of�policy�depends�on�the�will,�capacity�and�fiscal�commitments�of�key�institutions�
to�implement�them.
Key�Message�4:�Higher�degrees�of�flexibility�are�needed�both�in�the�design�
and�management�of�resilience�programmes
Evidence�from�BRACED-X�points�to�the�fact�that�building�resilience�in�the�
long�term�is�not�(only)�a�question�of�time,�but�of�the�amount�of�flexibility�
in�project�design�(see��Section�3.2.3�).�Working�in�partnerships�has�provided�
projects�with�a�more�diverse�range�of�capacities,�knowledge�and�experience�
that�would�not�have�been�as�effective�from�a�single�entity�working�alone.�
Yet�it�has�also�challenged�the�speed�and�scope�of�the�projects,�and�of�the�
programme�at�large,�to�be�flexible�and�to�learn�and�adapt.�Despite�valuable�
10ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� executive summary
accomplishments,�BRACED�provides,�at�best,�ad hoc examples�of�flexibility�
and�adaptation.�Projects�have�mostly�focused�on�reactive,�tactical�changes�in�
order�to�improve�performance,�rather�than�adapting�by�strategic�design,�which�
only�gets�projects�so�far.�Evidence�from�BRACED-X�challenges�the�extent�to�
which�learning�and�evidence-based�adaptive�decision�making�can�be�done�within�
large�consortia�programmes,�and�within�the�confines�of�conventional�programme�
designs�and�contracts�that�limit�the�scope�for�projects�to�employ�adaptive�
management.�In�the�future,�programmes,�and�their�donors,�need�to�embrace�
the�technical�elements�of�working�in�complex�environments,�and�issues�around�
risk,�failure�and�trust�inherent�in�adaptive�and�resilient�processes.�It�may�take�
more�time�–�and�probably�cost�more�–�to�manage�an�adaptive�programme�
than�a�conventional�programme.�This�means�allowing�freedom�to�experiment,�
and�to�trial�and�test�approaches,�as�well�as�freedom�to�fail.�But�failure�is�
not�a�‘waste�of�money’�–�indeed,�it�could�represent�better�value�for�money�
versus�continuing�to�fund�a�failing�project�–�as�long�as�programmes�
learn�from�what�does�not�work�and�make�decisions�based�on�this�evidence.�
Key�Message�5:�Phased�approaches�that�layer�and�link�processes�and�
interventions�across�timeframes�and�scales�should�guide�the�way�forward
In�line�with�our�key�messages�in��Year�2��and��Year�3�,�the�findings�from�BRACED-X�
lead�us�to�reiterate�the�fact�that�investing�in�sustainable�and�transformational�
resilience�outcomes�is�a�long-term�process,�requiring�alternative�approaches�
to�project�design�and�delivery�that�expand�beyond�three-�to�five-year�funding�
cycles.�Discussion�about�timeframes�should�not�be�centred�on�what�can�be�
achieved�in�terms�of�resilience�as�a�final�outcome;�more�enabling�environments�
may�see�more�‘results’.�Instead,�the�focus�should�be�on�the�extent�to�which�
projects�can�support�stakeholders�within�their�context�to�move�along�
development�pathways,�while�at�the�same�time�building�capacities�to�enable�
coping,�adaptation�and�transformation�in�the�face�of�climate�and�disaster�risk.�
To�this�end,�phased�delivery�approaches,�which�better�consider�timing�than�
duration�of�programmes�alone,�would�help�in�a�number�of�ways.�This�includes�
preventing�current�deficiencies�that�lead�to�projects�trying�to�do�too�much�at�
once�and�lacking�clear�logic�between�activities�undertaken�and�larger�impact�
claims.�It�would�support�working�through�any�resistance�to�change�projects�may�
experience,�and�open�up�opportunities�gained�through�an�evolving�understanding�
of�context�and�stakeholders�throughout�implementation.�Projects�can�also�
better�align�with�cycles�relating�to�agriculture,�government�planning�or�national�
and�local�policy�processes,�which�findings�from�the�extension�demonstrate�is�
needed�(see��Section�3.2.3�).�Overall,�donor�commitment�to�phased�approaches,�
both�in�terms�of�implementation�and�funding,�would�better�incentivise�the�ways�
of�working�needed�for�resilience,�especially�through�transformational�approaches.�
BRACED-X�proved,�short�term,�the�additional�value�that�can�be�added�to�project�
achievements�by�building�on�previous�phases�of�implementation.�Yet�more�
support�is�still�needed�for�BRACED�communities�to�be�resilient�to�the�changing�
risks�and�threats�they�face.
11ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� introduction and background
1.1�The�BRACED�programme�and�the�BRACED�extensionAfter�four�years�of�implementation,�this�report�presents�a�synthesis�of�the�
Building�Resilience�and�Adaptation�to�Climate�Extremes�and�Disasters�(BRACED)�
project�annual�reports,�and�evidence�from�four�deep�dives,�from�the�18-month�
extension,�referred�to�as�BRACED-X.
The�BRACED1�programme�was�originally�a�three-year,�£110�million�programme�
funded�by�the�UK�Department�for�International�Development�(DFID).�BRACED�
aimed�to�build�the�resilience�of�five�million�vulnerable�people�to�climate�extremes�
and�disasters.
BRACED�was�launched�in�January�2015�and�comprised�over�120�organisations�
working�in�15�consortia�across�13�countries�in�East�Africa,�the�Sahel�and�
Asia.�The�15�projects�were�led�by�BRACED�Implementing�Partners�(IPs),�who�
were�connected�to�a�Fund�Manager�(FM)�and�a�Knowledge�Manager�(KM).2�
1 www.braced.org.
2 braced km (2016) Learning about resilience through the braced programme: an introduction to the role of the braced knowledge manager. information Leaflet
1.INTRODUCTION�AND�BACKGROUNDimage: ciFor / Flickr
12ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� introduction and background
The�FM�was�responsible�for�overseeing�the�delivery�of�BRACED�projects.�The�KM�
led�monitoring,�evaluation�and�research�activities�based�on�the�projects�at�the�
programme�level.�The�evidence�and�knowledge�generated�fed�into�learning,�uptake�
and�communication�activities�in�order�to�effect�change�across�and�beyond�the�
BRACED�focus�countries�(see��Annex�1��for�more�information�about�the�BRACED�
components).�The���BRACED�Resilience�Exchange���summarises�existing�learning�
from�across�the�programme�about�what�works�to�strengthen�resilience,�supporting�
the�process�of�ensuring�evidence�is�put�into�use�in�policy�and�programmes.
At�the�end�of�October�2018,�DFID�decided�to�extend�the�BRACED�programme�
for�an�additional�18�months.�This�period,�from�1�January�2018�to�31�March�2019,�
and�the�implementation�wrap-up�period�that�followed�between�1�April�2019�and�
30�June�2019,�is�referred�to�as�BRACED-X.�BRACED-X�was�a�continuation�of�the�
BRACED�programme,�with�the�purpose�of�consolidating�and�expanding�work�
already�completed.�The�funds�were�organised�into�two�windows:�implementation�
(£10�million)�and�policy�(£4�million).�While�the�former�aimed�to�deliver�results�
on�the�ground,�the�latter�intended�to�accelerate�policy-influencing�activities�at�
national�and�local�levels.�Within�the�BRACED�implementation�period,�medium�–�
and�long-term�changes�were�achieved.�It�was�expected�that�IPs�would�build�on�
these�results�to�ensure�progress�towards�sustainability�of�outcomes.�Nine�projects�
out�of�BRACED’s�original�fifteen�were�selected�for�the�extension�(see��Annex�2�).
1.2�The�Routes�to�Resilience�reportThis�is�the�fourth�synthesis�and�analysis�of�BRACED�projects’�yearly�monitoring�
and�results�reporting.�The�Routes�to�Resilience�report�is�a�key�contribution�
to�the�BRACED�KM’s�work,�and�is�based�on�a�BRACED�programme�Theory�of�
Change�(ToC)�(see� Annex�3 )�and�supporting�monitoring�and�evaluation�(M&E)�
framework�developed�by�the�KM�Monitoring�and�Results�Reporting�(MRR)�
team�to�understand�how�resilience�is�being�built�in�BRACED.3
In�the�past�three�years,�the�Routes�to�Resilience�report�has�analysed�and�
identified�critical�insights�and�lessons�about�what�it�takes�to�enhance�
resilience�for�vulnerable�populations�across�a�range�of�contexts,�and�
through�different�packages�of�activities�and�social�and�policy�processes.�In�
Year�1,�we�gained�insight�into�the�types�of�activities�and�resilience pathways�
that�can�(or�cannot)�enhance�resilience,�particularly�anticipatory�and�absorptive�
capacities��(RTR�Year�1)�.�Year�2�demonstrated�the�four�main�enabling�processes
for�resilience-building��(RTR�Year�2)�,�with�evidence�around�the�importance�of�
sequencing and timing�illustrated�in�Year�3��(RTR�year�3)�.�Now,�under�BRACED-X,�
the�extension�phase�has�provided�additional�time�to�learn�more�about�
resilience outcomes�and�transformative�changes�as�understood�under�BRACED.
3 For further information on the braced m&e framework and system, see the braced m&e guidance notes . to understand how the mrr work fits within a broader m&e system implemented by both the km and Fm, see annex 4 .
13ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� introduction and background
1.3�Purpose�and�intended�usersAs�in�previous�years,�this�report�examines�the�question:�How are BRACED-X
projects continuing to build resilience to climate extremes and disasters?�The�
report�outlines�key�evidence�and�findings�in�response�to�this�central�question,�
assembling�and�synthesising�evidence�in�relation�to�the�programme�ToC.�
Based�on�the�evidence�and�lessons�generated�during�the�lifetime�of�BRACED,�
the�ToC�was�reviewed�and�updated�for�BRACED-X.�The�purpose�was�to�also�
reflect�the�changes�in�the�direction�and�scope�of�the�programme.�The�two�
main�overarching�hypotheses�of�the�programme�remain�the�same:
1.� If�people’s�resilience�capacities�to�anticipate,�absorb�and�adapt�to�shocks�are�
built,�enhanced�and�reshaped�through�policy�and�transformational�changes,�
then�outcomes�will�be�sustainable�and�will�contribute�to�people’s�well-being.
2.� If�resilience�and�transformational�outcomes�are�to�be�achieved,�then�
two�types�of�investments�are�needed:�bottom-up�and�top-down.�These�
include�supporting�households�and�communities�to�become�more�resilient�
through�‘bottom-up’�work�led�by�projects,�and�‘top-down’�investment�
in�national-level�policy�dialogues.
The�‘top-down’�approach�to�supporting�national�and�local�government�
capacity�was�not�implemented�under�BRACED.�However,�during�the�
extension�phase,�national�–�and�regional-level�efforts�were�commissioned�
and�implemented.4�In�addition,�the�funds�for�BRACED-X�were�structured�
so�that�projects�could�continue�implementing�community-based�activities�
and/or�continue,�expand�or�initiate�policy�work�at�subnational�level,�building�
on�and�responding�to�the�learning�from�three�years�of�implementation�
under�BRACED.�To�this�end,�an�additional�hypothesis�was�added�to�the�ToC:
3.� If�projects�engaged�locally�and�produced�relevant�evidence�that�
demonstrates�the�effectiveness�of�resilience�interventions,�then�this�
would�provide�the�basis�for�successful�policy�dialogues�and�potential�
change�from�the�bottom�up.
This�year,�we�challenge�these�three�assumptions�in�more�detail�by�asking�five�
questions�related�to�the�assumptions�underpinning�the�original�programme�ToC,�
that�remain�unanswered,�yet�still�relevant�during�the�programme�extension.
1.� What types of adaptive capacity outcomes are possible with more time?
(�Section 3.2.2�)
BRACED�demonstrated�across�its�portfolio�that�enhancing�people’s�
anticipatory�and�absorptive�capacity�is�possible�after�Years�1�and�2,�
4 the national-level work (funded and implemented under braced-x in six countries) is led by the Fm, and it is beyond the focus and scope of the km mrr team and of this report. a separate evaluation report has been commissioned to this end. where relevant, emerging findings from national-level evaluation work have been included in this report.
14ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� introduction and background
with�signs�of�adaptive�capacity�emerging�in�Year�3.5�However,�an�extra�year�
was�needed�to�see�more�concrete�evidence�of�adaptive�capacity�outcomes.�
This�report�explores�the�types�of�adaptive�capacity�outcomes�achieved�
during�BRACED-X,�and�examines�the�timeframes�required�to�attain�them.
2.� To what extent can consortia projects be adaptive? ( Section 3.2.3 )
Adaptive�and�flexible�management�approaches�are�essential�to�ensure�
the�relevance�and�appropriateness�of�resilience�programmes.�This�is�so�
communities�are�not�locked�into�one�pathway�that�may�become�obsolete�
in�the�future,6�or�that�programmes�operating�in�shock-prone�contexts�are�
not�just�doing�‘good’�development.�Understanding�the�extent�to�which�
large�consortia�projects�are�able�to�employ�adaptive�management7�as�
a�programming�approach�remains�poorly�understood�in�BRACED.�This�
report�examines�evidence�from�BRACED-X,�to�present�insights�into�how�
programmes�like�BRACED�make�adaptive�management�a�reality,�or�not.
3.� How can projects foster equality and build resilience? ( Section 4.2.1 )
The�BRACED�programme�operates�on�the�premise�that�consideration�of�
gender,�and�other�dimensions�of�social�inclusion,�are�crucial�to�effective�
programming�as�part�of�an�equitable�climate�change�response.�Yet�the�
extent�to�which�projects�have�moved�beyond�the�participation�of�socially�
marginalised�groups�in�particular�activities,�and�contributed�to�empowering�
individuals�and�communities�to�challenge�the�drivers�that�perpetuate�their�
inequality,�is�not�well�known.�This�report�examines�how�forms�of�equality�
have�been�fostered�under�the�extension�phase.
4.� To what extent is policy change possible from the bottom up? ( Section 4.2.2 )
This�question�relates�to�the�hypothesis�added�to�the�programme�ToC�
for�BRACED-X.�This�report�examines�the�extent�to�which�projects�have�
generated�policy-relevant�evidence,�and�if�it�has�fed�into�learning��
and�been�leveraged�to�facilitate�changes�in�policy.
5.� How can sustainability be supported within the lifetime of a project?
( Section 4.2.3 )
BRACED�demonstrated�across�its�portfolio�that�strengthening�the�
resilience�capacities�of�project�participants�can�deliver�sustainable�outcomes.�
The�evidence�to�date�however�remains�anecdotal,�with�the�programme’s�
5 villanueva, P., Phillips itty, r., sword-daniels, v. (2018) routes to resilience – insights from braced final year. p. 54.
6 ibid. p. 81.
7 this report conceives adaptive management as an approach to programme delivery that seeks to better achieve desired outcomes and impacts through the systematic, iterative and planned use of emergent knowledge and learning throughout programme implementation. it involves reacting and responding to changes in the political and socio-economic operating environment. it also involves recognising that, while the overall programme goal or aim may be clear, the pathway to achieving it may not. adaptive programmes adopt deliberate processes of testing, learning and experimentation, drawing on monitoring, evaluation and other data and evidence strategies.
15ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� introduction and background
timeframe�of�three�years,�too�short�to�determine�the�extent�observable�
changes�can�potentially�be�sustained�longer�term.8�In�response,�this�
report�explores�in�more�depth�the�approaches�used�by�IPs�to�promote�
sustainability�during�BRACED-X.
As�in�BRACED,�BRACED-X�is�rich�in�its�diversity�of�projects,�contexts�and�
approaches�used�to�promote�resilience,�and�this�report�aims�to�illustrate�this�
diversity�and�difference�in�implementation�and�context�in�practice.�The�content�
of�the�report�is�substantial�in�order�to�sufficiently�represent�and�analyse�data�
from�nine�projects,�from�a�programme�perspective,�using�the�lens�of�the�
BRACED�M&E�framework�(see�Table�1�in��Section�2.1�).
The�focus�of�this�report�is�on�how�change�has�happened�across�the�extension�
phase,�rather�than�on�the�project�or�programme�results�per se.�The�report�does�
not�aim�to�evaluate�BRACED�project-level�interventions�or�pass�judgement�on�
IPs’�progress�or�performance.�The�KM�has�conducted�a�synthesis�of�BRACED-X�
projects’�final�evaluations,�which�provides�a�detailed�assessment�of�project�results.�
(�Resilience�Results:�BRACED�Extension�Final�Evaluation�–�synthesis�paper�).
This�report�is�aimed�at�the�following�audiences:
•� BRACED�project�IPs:�A�qualitative�assessment�of�results,�evidence�and�
learning�across�projects�from�the�extension�phase�to�foster�shared�learning�
between�the�KM�and�IPs�on�how�change�has�happened�under�BRACED-X.
•� BRACED�KM:�A�foundational�piece�of�evidence�that�informs�the�wider�
KM�evidence�generation�process.
•� BRACED�donor�DFID:�Qualitative�insights�and�lessons�demonstrating�
how�BRACED-X�enabled�resilience�for�the�populations�it�supported�over�
the�course�of�its�implementation.
•� Others�designing,�implementing�and�funding�resilience-building�
programmes:�A�contribution�to�broader�sectoral�knowledge�about�
designing�and�implementing�resilience�programmes.�The�findings,�
lessons�and�implications�of�this�report�build�on�the�work�of�BRACED-X�
IPs�firmly�grounded�in�practice.
1.4�Report�structureThe�report�is�structured�as�follows:
�Section�2��presents�the�M&E�framework�that�guides�data�collection�and�analysis,�
and�the�methodology�used�to�analyse�and�synthesise�data�to�draw�findings�from�
project�to�programme�level.�The�approach�used�to�facilitate�the�BRACED-X�deep�
dives�is�also�explained.
8 ibid. p. 71.
16ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� introduction and background
�Section�3��presents�a�summary�of�analysis�of�outcome�level�achievements,�
measured�using�three�capacities�enabling�resilience,�that�is,�to�absorb,�anticipate�
and�adapt�to�shocks�and�stresses�(3As).9�It�also�addresses�questions�that�remain�
unanswered�from�three�years�of�BRACED�around�the�adaptive�capacity�of�project�
participants,�and�the�extent�to�which�consortia�projects�can�themselves�be�
adaptive�in�light�of�changing�circumstances.
�Section�4��presents�analysis�and�reflection�on�the�findings�supporting�
transformational�change�at�outcome�level.�It�also�answers�questions�that�remain�
unaddressed�from�BRACED�around�equality,�sustainability,�and�the�extent�project�
evidence�on�resilience�has�aided�policy�change�from�the�bottom�up.
�Section�5�,�the�concluding�section�of�this�report,�brings�sections�3�and�4�
together,�to�draw�out�five�key�messages�from�the�evidence�presented.�Each�key�
message�is�accompanied�by�a�set�of�implications�for�policy�and�future�resilience�
programme�design.
9 bahadur, a., Peters, k., wilkinson, e., Pichon, F., gray, k., tanner, t. (2015) the 3as: tracking resilience across braced. London: odi.
17ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� metHodoLogy
2.1�Making�sense�of�project�dataIP�annual�reports�from�BRACED-X�detail�the�progress�and�learning�of�nine�
projects�against�the�BRACED�M&E�framework.�The�BRACED�M&E�framework�
tracks�progress�against�the�ToC�and�its�assumptions.�As�in�previous�years,�
monitoring�and�results�reporting�under�BRACED-X�aimed�to�go�beyond�
asking�‘Are�projects�taking�the�actions�they�said�they�would�take?’�to�ask,�
‘How is�BRACED-X�progressing�towards�the�expected�results?’�The�difference�
between�these�two�approaches�is�important.�In�the�former,�more�limited�
approach,�monitoring�and�reporting�may�focus�on�a)�tracking�project�activities�
and�outputs,�and�b)�the�use�of�resources.�The�latter,�broader�approach�also�
involves�reporting�on:
•� Pathways�that�enable�projects�to�move�from�outputs�to�outcomes;
•� Context�and�how�it�has�affected�project’s�resilience-building�efforts;
•� Outcomes�in�terms�of�resilience�capacities�and�transformational�change;
•� Assumptions,�and�if�and�how�they�still�remain�valid.
BRACED-X�IPs�have�provided�systematic�qualitative�and�explanatory�reporting�
against�each�of�these�dimensions,�except�for�pathways�moving�from�outputs�to�
outcomes.�The�focus�of�programme�reporting�under�the�extension�phase�has�
gone�beyond�outputs,�to�measure�outcomes�only,�in�order�to�demonstrate�final�
image: ciF action / Flickr
2.METHODOLOGY
18ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� metHodoLogy
changes�achieved�after�the�additional�implementation�period.�This�report�takes�
a�thematic�approach�to�analysis�and�synthesis.�This�is�so�patterns�(or�recurring�
themes)�within�the�data�could�be�identified�and�analysed�in�order�to�address�
the�questions�this�report�explores.�Table�1�summarises�the�analytical�framework�
informing�the�project-�to�programme-level�synthesis�this�year,�which�is�based�
on�the�BRACED�M&E�framework.�Building�on�experience�in�Year�3,�the�same�
approach�to�analysis�and�synthesis�from�project-�to�programme-level�was�
followed�for�BRACED-X�(see��Annex�5�).
Table�1:�Analytical�framework�for�programme�synthesis
overarching question
theme sub-questions
HowareBRACED
Components
A&Bbuilding
resilienceto
climateextremes
anddisasters?
Understanding�
resilience�
outcomes
To�what�extent�can�we�see�
change�happening�in�terms�of�
capacity�to�anticipate,�absorb�
and�adapt�to�climate�shocks�
and�stresses,�and�achieve�
transformation?
Contextualising�
change�
What�impact�have�shocks�and�
stresses�had?
To�what�extent�is�the�context�
enabling�or�constraining�
change?
2.2�Deep�dives
2.2.1�Undertaking�fieldwork�and�working�with�IPs
To�address�the�questions�this�report�explores�–�except�for�policy�change�from�
the�bottom�up10�–�the�MRR�team�undertook�deep�dives�with�four�BRACED-X�
projects:�MAR,�BRES,�Livestock�Mobility�and�PROGRESS.�These�projects�were�
selected�from�a�portfolio�of�nine�funded�by�the�BRACED�extension,�on�the�basis�
of�IP�interest�in�the�analysis,�and�to�represent�responses�from�different�contexts�
and�project�objectives.�Two�cases�are�from�East�Africa�(MAR�and�PROGRESS),�
and�two�from�West�Africa�(BRES�and�Livestock�Mobility),�with�representation�
from�both�the�implementation�and�policy�windows�of�BRACED-X.
Data�were�gathered�using�semi-structured�key�informant�interviews�and�focus�
groups�with�108�individuals�in�total�(see��Annex�7�)�during�10-day�field�visits,�
10 to explore policy change from the bottom up, an analysis of projects’ quarterly reports was undertaken, based on iP responses to questions based on the policy areas of change (see annex 8 ).
19ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� metHodoLogy
which�took�place�between�January�and�March�2019.11�Participants�comprised�
of�men�and�women�representing�project�staff�and�project�partners�of�different�
designation,�and�who�had�been�involved�in�the�project�for�varying�lengths�of�
time�(ranging�from�one�to�four�years).�Participants�were�chosen�from�a�limited�
sample�frame�through�purposive�sampling,�the�most�typically�used�sampling�
method�in�qualitative�research.12�This�approach�was�beneficial,�as�it�enabled�
the�MRR�team�to�select�information-rich�participants�who�were�able�to�address�
the�questions�posed�by�this�report.�Those�not�involved�or�with�low�participation�
in�projects�were�not�interviewed.�Selection�was�also�influenced�by�availability�
and�willingness�to�participate�at�the�time�of�fieldwork.
All�interviews�and�focus�group�discussions�were�based�around�the�same�question�
guide,�which�was�pilot�tested�to�ensure�question�understanding�and�ease�of�
response.�Each�interview�and�focus�group�lasted�between�one�and�two�hours,�
with�up�to�five�participants�in�each�focus�group.�All�methods�of�data�collection�
were�facilitated�in�person�by�a�member�of�the�MRR�team�and�audio�recorded.�
Using�two�distinct�yet�complementary�data�collection�methods,�and�interviewing�
a�range�of�stakeholders,�was�valuable.�It�enabled�the�MRR�team�to�triangulate�
different�participant�viewpoints�and�helped�reduce�any�specific�biases�associated�
with�one�particular�approach.13�Asking�participants�the�same�question�in�different�
ways�during�interviews�and�focus�groups�in�order�to�triangulate�data�also�ensured�
robustness�of�response.�All�findings�were�validated�with�IPs�at�the�end�of�
fieldwork,�to�support�sense-making�and�test�the�rigour�of�results.
2.2.2�Moving�from�data�collection�to�analysis
Inductive�thematic�analysis�of�all�data�collected�was�undertaken�once�fieldwork�
was�complete.�As�described,�this�involved�identifying,�examining�and�analysing�
patterns�in�the�data,14�which�demonstrated�participants’�perspectives�and�
understanding�around�the�different�aspects�being�explored�during�fieldwork.�
Established�protocols�for�good�thematic�analysis�were�followed.15�Open�coding�
was�used,�where�themes�emerged�directly�from�the�data�and�were�recorded�in�
an�Excel�spreadsheet.�Finally,�a�range�of�analytic�tactics�were�employed�to�assess�
and�ensure�the�significance�of�emergent�themes�identified.
11 Fieldwork with Livestock mobility took place in ouagadougou, burkina Faso, over five days rather than 10 days due to increasing security concerns at the time (see section 2.3 ).
12 bryman, a. (2008) social research methods. third edition. oxford: oxford university Press.
13 maxwell, J.a. (2005) Qualitative research design: an interactive design. thousand oaks, ca: sage.
14 braun, v. and clarke, v. (2013) successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. London, sage.
15 braun, v. and clarke, v. (2006) using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101.
20ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� metHodoLogy
2.2.3�Ethical�considerations
Ethical�considerations�were�given�substantial�attention�during�the�design�of�
data�collection�and�throughout�fieldwork.�Consent�was�sought�from�participants�
before�data�elicitation�methods�were�implemented.�Participants�were�informed�of�
their�rights�to�participate�and�were�able�to�freely�withdraw�from�the�study�if�they�
wished�to�do�so.�Prior�to�fieldwork,�participants�received�an�information�sheet�
introducing�the�MRR�team,�which�described�the�purpose�of�data�collection�and�
its�intended�objectives�and�outputs.�Providing�this�information�was�beneficial,�as�
it�helped�manage�the�expectations�of�participants�who�chose�to�engage�with�us.�
Attention�was�paid�to�the�composition�of�focus�groups,�to�ensure�participation�
and�representation.�Each�focus�group�and�interview�also�ended�with�a�debriefing,�
which�allowed�participants�to�ask�questions�or�raise�concerns�they�may�have�had.
2.3�LimitationsThe�MRR�deep�dives�provide�one�of�the�main�sources�of�evidence�for�this�
report.�Constraints�related�to�data�collection,�and�how�they�were�addressed,��
is�as�follows:
•� Heightened�security�risks�within�project�locations�meant�fieldwork�
in-country�with�Livestock�Mobility�was�reduced�from�10�to�five�days.�
This�restricted�the�number�and�type�of�key�informants�met.�To�capture�
the�perspectives�of�stakeholders�not�able�to�be�interviewed�in�person,�
remote�interviews�via�Skype�were�conducted�where�possible,�as�the�
most�appropriate�option.
•� A�translator�was�required�for�data�collection�with�Livestock�Mobility�and�
MAR.�Using�a�translator�ensured�that�participants�were�better�able�to�
express�themselves�in�their�preferred�language.�Yet�it�also�posed�challenges�
around�not�always�being�given�the�‘whole�story’�of�what�participants�
said,�or�assumptions�made�by�the�translator�around�what�information�was�
relevant.�To�minimise�these�issues,�the�MRR�team�re-emphasised�protocol�
with�translators�before�each�focus�group�and�interview�and�frequently�sought�
clarification.�Possible�interpretation�of�questions�and�answers�owing�to�
language�differences�are�however�acknowledged.
•� Focus�groups�were�at�times�dominated�by�participants�with�strong�opinions.�
To�mitigate�this�situation,�the�MRR�team�paid�attention�to�ensure�all�
participants�were�heard�and�given�the�opportunity�to�express�their�perspective.
IP�annual�reports�also�provide�key�evidence�for�this�report.�They�are�
explicitly�self-reported�with�recognition�that�monitoring�and�results�reporting�
is�a�facilitated�process�of�co-generation�of�evidence�and�shared�learning�
on�resilience-strengthening.�This�report�has�attempted�to�overcome�any�
shortcomings�this�may�create�by�referring�to�MRR�team�knowledge�of�the�
projects,�as�well�as�the�separately�conducted�BRACED-X�Final�Evaluation�
synthesis�and�other�FM�and�KM�data�sources.�Additionally,�our�analysis�
can�draw�only�on�what�is�included�in�IP�reports.�We�do�not�have�evidence�
21ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� metHodoLogy
of�what�is�not�reported�and�whether�interventions�emphasised�are�leading�
to�change�(or�not),�and�why.
While�IPs�continued�to�report�against�the�BRACED�M&E�framework�under�the�
extension�phase,�and�often�very�comprehensively,�there�are�a�number�of�factors�
that�may�limit�the�analysis.�Many�of�the�original�risks�identified�when�planning�
the�synthesis�were�avoided,�while�most�of�the�ones�that�did�arise�were�anticipated�
and�mitigated�for�as�described�below.�Overall,�in�spite�of�these�limitations,�
we�are�confident�that�the�conclusions�and�key�messages�in�this�report�hold.
•� BRACED-X�projects�cover�a�wide�range�of�issues�and�operate�in�very�
different�contexts,�from�promoting�trans-border�livestock�mobility�
across�the�Sahel�to�supporting�smallholder�farmers�in�Nepal�to�take�
advantage�of�investments�in�climate-smart�technologies.�As�demonstrated�
since�Year�1�of�BRACED,�context�specificity�has�proven�a�challenge�
for�the�programme-level�analysis�and�synthesis�and�the�aggregation�
of�a�large�and�diverse�dataset.�This�report�has�sought�to�address�this�
challenge�by�following�a�similar�approach�to�Year�3,�using�thematic�synthesis.�
This�is�a�useful�approach�to�analysis,�which�has�enabled�common�patterns�to�
be�identified�across�the�portfolio.�In�addition,�building�on�learning�from�last�
year,�we�modified�and�removed�some�reporting�templates�to�help�improve�
reporting�by�IPs.
•� While�much�data�was�received�from�each�project,�with�improvements�made�
since�last�year,�there�is�still�often�limited�detailed�analysis�of�how�change�
happens�and�of�how�the�context�is�enabling�or�constraining�change.�
This�report�has�sought�to�overcome�this�challenge,�by�consulting�with�
BRACED�Evaluation�Teams�and�KM�research�colleagues�in�order�to�deepen�
the�analysis�based�on�their�evaluation�and�research�work�(see��Annex�5�).
•� Similar�to�Year�3,�in�the�extension�phase�of�BRACED,�there�was�
a�summative�focus�in�reporting.�There�has�been�a�tendency�to�report�positive�
changes�and�impacts�on�resilience,�as�projects�are�keen�to�demonstrate�
achievements�at�outcome�level,�and�this�is�reflected�in�the�content�of�the�
Year�4�Annual�Reporting�Supplements�(ARS)�received.�This�has�implications�
for�reporting�overall�achievements�in�this�report.�While�findings�can�be�
triangulated�to�some�extent,�particularly�through�data�collected�for�the�
MRR�deep�dives�(see��Section�2.2�),�there�still�remains,�in�some�instances,�
limited�explanation�of�how�and�why�resilience�capacities�relate�to�resilience.�
The�way�the�information�is�presented�can�make�it�challenging�to�unpack�
causality�and�triangulate�evidence�to�support�or�reject�the�outcome�claim.
22ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� resiLience outcomes
This�section�presents�a�summary�of�outcomes�achieved�relating�to�the�3As�
at�programme�level.�An�analysis�of�findings,�and�discussion�of�key�insights�
and�emerging�issues�that�have�arisen�in�achieving�these�outcomes�in�BRACED-X�
are�presented�in�the�following�sub-sections�of�this�report.
Summary�of�findings
•� More�time�under�BRACED-X�has�not�led�to�more�adaptive�capacity�
outcomes,�but�has�allowed�projects�to�build�on�what�has�been�achieved�
to�improve�sustainability�of�results�beyond�projects’�lifetime.
•� More�time�under�BRACED-X�also�reveals�that�adaptation�can�be�integrated�
into�efforts�enabling�anticipatory�or�absorptive�outcomes,�to�mitigate�
trade-offs�between�achieving�short�–�and�long-term�goals,�by�embedding�
behaviour�and�processes�of�learning�and�adjusting�over�time.
•� BRACED�demonstrates�that�building�resilience�in�the�long�term�is�not�(only)�
a�question�of�time,�but�of�flexibility�in�project�design.�Conventional�project�
designs�and�contracts�limit�the�scope�for�adaptive�management,�which�is�
critical�for�resilience-building.
3.RESILIENCE�OUTCOMES:�WHAT�HAS�BEEN�ACHIEVED?image: kandukuru nagarjun / Flickr
23ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� resiLience outcomes
•� The�BRACED-X�ToC�did�not�articulate�the�synergies�and�trade-offs�
between�absorptive,�anticipatory�and�adaptive�capacities.�Evidence�to�date�
demonstrates�that,�while�programmes�may�tick�all�of�the�indicator�boxes,�
they�may�still�fall�short�of�delivering�adaptive�capacity�outcomes.
3.1�Resilience�capacitiesThe�monitoring�data�from�across�the�nine�projects�shows�that�BRACED-X�has�
allowed�more�results�and�outcomes�to�emerge.�In�particular,�there�is�further�
evidence�of�adaptive�capacity,�which�was�anecdotal�last�year�as�signs�of�adaptive�
capacity�were�only�beginning�to�emerge.�As�well�as�allowing�a�maturation�of�
effect,�the�extension�period�saw�further�strengthening�and�reinforcing�of�results�
established�under�BRACED,�as�projects�consolidated�BRACED�successes.�Projects�
strived�to�show�how�each�activity�or�intervention�contributed�to�one�or�more�
capacity,�with�explanations�on�the�outcomes�focused�on�and�the�assessment�
tools�used�provided.�As�such,�reporting�is�more�detailed�compared�to�the�final�
year�of�BRACED.�This�suggests�that�as�BRACED-X�comes�to�an�end,�IPs�are�
attempting�(and�are�able)�to�provide�a�more�thorough�view�of�how�their�projects�
have�enabled�people’s�resilience.�Table�2�presents�the�outcomes�reported,�and,�
from�the�analysis�of�evidence,�the�projects�that�have�contributed�to�these.
3.1.1�Absorptive�capacity
Evidence�demonstrating�increased�absorptive�capacity�corroborates�findings�
from�Year�3�of�BRACED.�Reported�outcomes�relating�to�absorptive�capacity�
continue�to�be�dominated�by�improved�food�security�or�dietary�diversity�
(six�projects)16�as�the�most�common�outcome�for�BRACED-X�projects.�This�
reflects�the�continued�need�for�projects�to�support�individuals�and�households�
to�meet�their�basic�needs�to�lay�a�foundation�for�building�absorptive�capacity.�
The�extra�time�of�the�extension�has�been�beneficial�here,�but�it�is�also�the�
sequencing�undertaken�by�projects�that�is�key,�so�that�once�basic�needs�
are�met,�absorptive�capacity�can�be�built.�Growth�in�assets�(six�projects)17�
and�in�savings�through�improved�access�to�credit�and�banking�opportunities�
(five�projects)18�were�also�demonstrated�as�a�means�to�withstand�shocks�and�
stresses�and�avoid�damaging�coping�strategies.�PROGRESS�is�illustrative�of�this,�
where�activities�aimed�at�building�savings�in�Kenya�helped�people�smooth�
consumption�during�periods�of�drought.
16 anukulan, bres, dcF, Progress, sur1m, wyL.
17 bres, dcF, mar, sur1m, wyL, Livestock mobility.
18 anukulan, mar, Progress, sur1m, wyL.
24ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� resiLience outcomes
Table�2:�Capacity�outcomes�and�contributing�projects
3As capacity outcome projects contributing to outcomes
number of projects
absorptive capacity growth in assets bres, dcF, mar, sur1m, wyL, Livestock mobility, anukulan
7
increased savings anukulan, mar, Progress, sur1m, wyL
5
improved food security or dietary diversity anukulan, bres, dcF, Progress, sur1m, wyL
6
anticipatory capacity
dissemination and use of climate-related information (weather/seasonal forecasts and early warning systems)
wyL, Livestock mobility, Progress, sur1m, mar, anukulan, dcF, bres
8
developing preparedness and contingency plans Progress, sur1m, anukulan, wyL
4
increased insurance against risk anukulan, mar, Livestock mobility
3
adaptive capacity incorporation and adoption of climate-smart technologies and innovations to manage natural resources and/or farm systems (leading to better managed watersheds, rangelands and pastures and in some cases improved yields and use of time)
Livestock mobility, Progress, mar, sur1m, anukulan, bres, dcF, wyL
8
diversification of income streams Livestock mobility, mar, anukulan, wyL, bres
5
integration of climate concerns into local planning anukulan, dcF, Progress, sur1m, wyL
5
strengthened links in value chains and markets through formalising producer groups and links to markets (leading to increased incomes)
anukulan, bres, Livestock mobility, mar, Progress, sur1m, wyL
7
improved access to crops (through plant doctors) and livestock (through veterinary services)
anukulan, Livestock mobility, bres
3
3.1.2�Anticipatory�capacity
The�key�driver�of�anticipatory�capacity�under�BRACED-X�continued�to�be�
the�dissemination�of�climate�and�weather�information,�as�demonstrated�
by�eight�out�of�nine�projects.19�Most�projects�also�reported�on�issues�of�timing�
and�described�the�types�of�anticipatory�actions�taken�as�a�result�of�climate�
information�received�(see�Box�1).
Other�actions�to�improve�anticipatory�capacity�reported�by�projects�
relate�to�insuring�against�risk.�For�example,�in�Ethiopia�under�MAR,�
19 anukulan, bres, cmesa-e, dcF, Livestock mobility, mar, sur1m, wyL.
25ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� resiLience outcomes
19,105�pastoralists�signed�up�to�livestock�insurance�products,�while�in�Nepal,�
under�Anukulan,�2,104�households�took�up�crop�insurance�during�the�extension�
period.�As�insurance�pays�out�after�potential�losses,�it�helps�beneficiaries�
prepare�for�extreme�events.
At�higher�institutional�levels,�findings�demonstrate�projects�have�made�
vertical�and�horizontal�linkages�across�institutions�to�improve�and�facilitate�
building�anticipatory�capacity�as�a�stepping�stone�towards�building�adaptive�
capacity.�CMESA-E�in�Ethiopia�is�one�example.�The�project�linked�48�woredas�
at�local�level�to�a�national�climate�services�platform,�getting�sectoral�climate�
change�adaptation�plans�in�place�in�four�key�ministries,�that�is,�Agriculture,�
Health,�the�National�Disaster�Risk�Management�Commission,�and�Water�
and�Energy.�Government�buy-in�is�also�reported�to�support�the�potential�
for�sustainability�(see��Section�4.1.4�).
Box�1:�From�accessing�to�using�climate�information
Farmers�have�used�seasonal�climate�and�weather�information�to�make�
decisions�around�when�to�plant�crops,�what�farming�practices�to�use�and�
what�seeds�are�most�suitable.�Other�examples�include�day-to-day�choices�
such�as�whether�or�not�to�put�grain�out�to�dry.�DCF�and�BRES�have�reported�
higher�agricultural�yields�in�some�cases,�but�there�is�also�the�possible�
influence�of�other�farming�advice.�Decisions�made�continue�to�enhance�
livelihood�activities,�improving�household�income.�Other�examples�combine�
historical�information�such�as�flooding�risk�together�with�seasonal�risks,�
to�integrate�into�adaptation�planning�(Anukulan),�or�local�authorities�making�
decisions�about�public�good�investments�in�DCF.
Decisions�under�the�extension�phase�continue�to�be�based�on�short-term,�
seasonal�forecasts�or�early�warnings,�together�with�monitoring�information�
(e.g.�on�biomass�or�rainfall),�which�feeds�into�the�information�beneficiaries�
receive.�The�use�of�long-term�climate�information�is�limited�at�the�local�
level�(as�in�the�final�year�of�BRACED)�and�is�not�sufficient�to�support�
people’s�more�immediate�decision-making�needs,�which�most�projects�
were�designed�to�enable.�This�means�the�majority�of�IPs�lean�towards�local�
responses�to�existing�climate�variability,�and�people’s�more�immediate�
vulnerability�to�current�climate�stresses.�A�proactive�anticipation�of�future�
climate�change,�and�future-looking�planning�and�decision�making�is�
not�emphasised.�Challenges�remain�about�the�uncertainty,�accessibility�
and�relevance�of�climate�information�at�a�local�level.20
20 cmesa-e is one project in ethiopia that is concerned about encouraging communities to use long-term climate information that may prove incorrect and lead to maladaptation. existing climate models contradict recent trends in rainfall in the greater Horn region or are inconclusive in west africa.
26ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� resiLience outcomes
BRACED-X�also�provides�novel�insights�into�challenges�around�timing,�
which�relates�to�climate�services�as�well�as�other�aspects�of�the�programme�
(see��Section�3.2.3�).�Now�that�more�than�one�cycle�of�climate�information�
has�been�used�from�BRACED�to�BRACED-X,�the�extra�time�of�the�extension�
has�brought�into�sharper�focus�tensions�around�when�climate�and�weather�
information�was�available,�versus�when�the�information�was�needed�to�make�
decisions.�This�was�particularly�the�case�for�Livestock�Mobility�and�seasonal�
forecasts�in�the�Sahel.�Forecasts�often�arrived�just�before�the�start�of�the�rainy�
season,�providing�a�very�short�lead�time�for�pastoralists�to�make�decisions�
before�the�start�of�the�rains.�Similarly,�in�Burkina�Faso�under�BRES,�seasonal�
forecasts�arrived�after�farmers�purchased�their�seeds.�This�meant�they�
could�not�use�the�forecast�to�ascertain�whether�purchasing�more�drought-
tolerant�varieties�would�be�advisable.�Income�to�buy�additional�seeds,�if�
their�decision�was�wrong,�or�farmers’�ability�to�exchange�seeds�with�others,�
was�uncertain.�These�examples,�in�part,�question�the�extent�anticipatory�
capacity�is�actually�being�enhanced,�or�its�full�potential�reached,�if�
climate�and�weather�information�is�not�available�in�time�to�be�useful�
for�decision�making.
Still,�the�evidence�generated�from�BRES,�now�that�multiple�cycles�of�
seasonal�forecasts�have�been�used,�was�valuable�to�demonstrate�to�the�
national�meteorological�agency,�ANAM,�that�forecasts�need�to�be�released�
earlier�(by�two�weeks).�Farmers,�however,�require�the�forecast�earlier�still.�
More�time�would�allow�the�project�to�work�with�stakeholders�to�refine�the�
process�and�achieve�more�impact�(by�the�seasonal�forecast�being�available�
before�seed�purchasing�choices�are�required),�while�recognising�that�there�
is�also�a�limit�to�how�early�a�forecast�can�be�provided�for�a�future�season.�
Making�climate�services�decision-relevant�is�one�precondition�if�climate�
services�are�to�be�an�appropriate�resilience�intervention.
3.1.3�Adaptive�capacity
The�adoption�of�climate-smart�technologies�and�innovations�to�manage�
natural�resources�and�farm�systems�(seven�projects)21�was�the�most�reported�
contributor�to�promoting�adaptive�capacity�under�BRACED-X.�This,�on�the�whole,�
was�a�direct�result�of�projects�providing�training�and�support�to�these�activities,�
continuing�work�started�under�BRACED.�For�example,�in�Kenya,�PROGRESS�
consolidated�its�successes�under�BRACED�by�using�climate-smart�technologies,�
such�as�solar-powered�fridges,�to�improve�milk�trading�in�two�additional�camel�
milk�corridors�established�in�Wajir�during�BRACED-X.�This�enabled�producers,�
21 anukulan, bres, dcF, mar, Progress, sur1m, wyL.
27ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� resiLience outcomes
mainly�women,�to�diversify�their�income�–�with�income�diversification�also�
central�to�adaptive�capacity.22
Livestock�Mobility�and�PROGRESS�are�two�projects�that�reinforced�results�by�
extending�their�geographic�reach�as�a�way�of�consolidating�outcomes�around�
income�diversification�during�BRACED-X.�Still�working�in�partnership�with�
Crescent�Takaful�Savings�and�Credit�Cooperative�(SACCO),�two�additional�
microfinance�branches�providing�Sharia-compliant�services�opened�in�Kenya�
with�PROGRESS,�helping�2,000�Muslims�diversify�their�income�by�January�2019.23
Supporting�market�access�has�also�contributed�to�building�adaptive�capacity�
(seven�projects),24�predominately�through�formalising�producer�groups�and�
value�chain�development.�Ensuring�the�markets�are�there�and�functioning�acts�
as�an�incentive�for�people�to�engage�in�activities�to�diversify�their�livelihoods,�
and�the�BRACED-X�period�allowed�more�time�for�market�links�to�be�built�
and�strengthened.
For�example,�BRES�used�the�extra�time�of�BRACED-X�to�strengthen�results�
through�formalising�farmer�groups�established�under�BRACED.�By�converting�
farmer�groups�into�legally�recognised�cooperatives,�farmers�could�sell�their�
produce�in�provincial�markets�without�direct�project�support.�This�had�not�
happened�under�BRACED,�as�responding�to�more�immediate,�shorter-term�needs�
around�household�food�security�was�addressed�first.�MAR�likewise�strengthened�
linkages�to�markets�in�Ethiopia,�by�continuing�to�work�with�the�private�sector�
to�provide�microfinance�services�for�pastoralists�and�agro-pastoralists.
The�foundations�laid�by�BRACED�meant�that�improving�market�and�value�chain�
linkages�were�more�readily�linked�to�adaptive�capacity�under�BRACED-X�than�
in�the�previous�year.�Again,�sequencing�is�key.�Building�up�the�change�pathway�
from�technical�trainings�to�more�comprehensive�interventions�that�consider�
the�role�of�markets�and�value�chains�allowed�projects�to�consolidate�results,�
and�promote�the�potential�for�sustainability�(see��Section�4.1.4�).
A�number�of�projects�also�strengthened�political,�institutional�and�local�
ownership�in�existing�locations�as�a�way�to�reinforce�adaptive�capacity.�
For�example,�Livestock�Mobility�secured�ownership�of�project�outcomes�
by�solidifying�its�‘regional�dynamic’�with�potential�long-term�benefits.�
This�is�a�mechanism�that�brings�together�key�stakeholders�to�negotiate�
securing�land�and�resources�for�livestock�corridors�across�West�Africa.�
This�includes�pastoral�and�agro-pastoral�communities,�the�private�sector,�
local�government�and�influential�institutions�in�the�region,�such�as�CILSS,�
the�Permanent�Interstate�Committee�for�Drought�Control�in�the�Sahel.25�
22 Livestock mobility, mar, anukulan, dcF, bres.
23 the two additional branches were opened in the rural towns of Habaswein and bute, outside of wajir town in kenya.
24 anukulan, bres, Livestock mobility, mar, Progress, sur1m, wyL.
25 ciLss is a regional authority on pastoralism research and advocacy with strong ties to other influential regional actors.
28ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� resiLience outcomes
This�example�is�illustrative�of�how�adaptive�capacity�strategies�can�be�enhanced�
when�they�engage�with�the�underlying�economic�and�political�structures�
that�determine�risk�and�vulnerability,�in�this�case�for�pastoralists.�In�this�
way,�the�extra�time�of�the�extension�supported�Livestock�Mobility�in�laying�
long-term�foundations�for�pastoralists�to�be�able�to�adapt�with�the�support�of�
government�or�the�private�sector.�Being�strategic�about�purposefully�fostering�
such�context-specific�relationships�–�and�aligning�your�consortia�with�them�–�
is�crucial�for�enabling�long-term�adaptive�(and�sustainable)�change.
3.2�Analysis�and�reflectionThe�BRACED-X�ToC�assumes�that�community-based�interventions�will�
directly�lead�to�the�outcome�that�poor�people�have�improved�levels�of�
resilience�to�climate-related�shocks�and�stresses.�This�outcome�is�measured�using�
three�interlinked�capacities�to�absorb,�anticipate�and�adapt�to�shocks�and�stresses�
(the�3As).With�the�additional�time�of�the�extension�phase,�it�was�expected�
that�projects�would�demonstrate�more�concrete�evidence�of�adaptive�
capacity�outcomes.
3.2.1�Building�better�resilience�outcomes
Although�projects�were�expected�to�achieve�resilience�outcomes�in�the�
three-year�period�of�BRACED,�all�agree�that�the�extra�time�of�BRACED-X�meant�
projects�were�better�able�to�achieve�(improved)�resilience�outcomes�overall.�
As�such,�BRACED-X�achieved�more�in�18�months�than�BRACED�did�in�the�same�
time�period,�because�projects�were�able�to�capitalise�on�what�came�before,�
and�link,�layer�and�sequence�activities�enabling�change�onto�a�well-established�
foundation�that�helped�increase�the�impact�of�projects�–�an�important�element�
underpinning�the�success�of�the�extension�phase.�The�extra�time�in�some�cases�
made�up�for�what�increased�flexibility�in�approaches�to�implementation�over�
the�previous�three�years�may�have�achieved.
Overall,�projects�had�more�time�and�resources�to�monitor�and�track�results.�
The�additional�time�of�the�extension�phase�also�allowed�projects�to�deepen�
their�results�by�building�on�relationships�and�structures�already�established,�
and�better�align�and�embed�outcomes�within�local�processes�to�sustain�them.�
The�opportunity�to�use�learning�generated�from�the�previous�implementation�
phase�was�critical,�as�it�allowed�projects�to�be�more�tailored,�and�to�improve�
and�refine�their�approach�so�that�interventions�could�be�reinforced.
Projects�reported�that�they�scaled�back�interventions�to�focus�on�what�
works�based�on�BRACED�learning,26�or�revisited�and�strengthened�existing�
interventions,27�as�Anukulan�demonstrated�in�Nepal.�Weather�forecasts�and�plant�
clinics�were�added�in�BRACED-X�to�the�project’s�community�managed�collection�
26 wyL, Progress.
27 bres, mar, anukulan.
29ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� resiLience outcomes
centres.28�This�enhanced�the�package�of�information�and�services�participants�
received.�It�also�cultivated�relationships�between�new�stakeholders�involved,�
providing�a�beneficial�resource�from�which�to�build�social�relations�supporting�
people’s�capacity�for�resilience.
The�examples�projects�reported�also�show�that�it�is�not�possible�to�do�
everything�at�once,�with�approaches�undertaken�to�be�tested�over�multiple�
cycles,�and�to�include�processes�for�learning�and�adjustment�over�time.�As�such,�
the�evidence�confirms�that�resilience�programming�needs�to�do�more�than�simply�
establish�new�mechanisms�or�activities.�It�must�ensure�learning�and�embed�
behaviours�around�evidence-based�decision�making�within�projects�themselves,�
as�well�as�in�the�individuals,�communities�and�institutions�that�projects�support,�
if�interventions�are�to�be�effective�for�resilience.
3.2.2�What�types�of�adaptive�capacity�outcomes�are�possible�with�more�time?
BRACED-X�project�monitoring�reports�reveal�insights�into�the�temporal�
dimension�of�adaptive�capacity,�and�the�benefit�of�what�more�time�has�
achieved.�By�the�final�year�of�BRACED,�it�had�become�evident�that�finding�
ways�to�integrate�adaptive�capacity�within�efforts�to�build�anticipatory�or�
absorptive�outcomes�might�be�a�feasible�pathway�to�mitigate�trade-offs�between�
achieving�short�–�and�long-term�goals,�rather�than�treating�adaptive�capacity�
as�a�third�isolated�outcome.29�However,�evidence�of�how�to�achieve�this�
was�scant.�BRACED-X�findings�add�to�this�perspective,�to�show�that�activities�
and�interventions�supporting�anticipatory�and�absorptive�capacity�can�be�
part�of�the�process�of�enabling�adaptive�capacity,�if�they�endure�and�remain�
adaptive�themselves.
For�example,�local�plans�intended�to�manage�current�risks�and�threats�may�
support�anticipatory�or�absorptive�capacity�in�the�immediate�term.�Yet�they�
can�also�contribute�to�adaptive�capacity�if�these�plans�are�regularly�updated,�
refined�and�improved�as�knowledge�and�skills�develop,�new�information�and�
technologies�become�available,�and�the�environment�and�climate�changes.�
This�is�demonstrated�by�the�community�early�warning�and�emergency�response�
system,�known�locally�in�Niger�and�Mali�as�the�‘SCAP-Ru’,�established�during�
BRACED�under�SUR1M.�The�additional�time�of�BRACED-X�enabled�communities�
to�complete�a�full�iteration�of�action�planning,�over�two�cycles,�allowing�them�
to�reflect�on,�update,�adapt,�and�improve�their�plans�based�on�learning�from�the�
initial�stage�of�BRACED.�This�resulted�in�certain�risks�and�disturbances�that�were�
not�at�first�planned�for�being�included,�with�approaches�on�how�to�respond�and�
whom�to�work�with�adjusted.�If�repeated�over�time,�with�multiple�cycles�run,�this�
28 the collection centres developed under anukulan enabled communities to work with the private sector and government to make crop calendars and assess and seek solutions to climate change impacts. they also provided grassroots representation in the LaPa process.
29 villanueva, P., Phillips itty, r., sword-daniels, v. (2018) routes to resilience – insights from braced final year. p. 79.
30ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� resiLience outcomes
behaviour�can�offer�a�useful�grounding�for�adaptive�capacity.�This�is�because�it�is�
not�just�about�what�activities�or�interventions�projects�can�implement�now�with�
the�knowledge�and�experience�currently�available.�Rather�it�is�about�establishing�
mechanisms�and�providing�a�basis�for�forms�of�decision�making�and�action�
that�can�aid�the�continual�process�of�adaptation,�and�is�a�key�value�of�longer�
timeframes�for�resilience�programming.
Ensuring�learning�and�developing�a�culture�of�behaviour�change�around�
evidence-based�adaptive�decision�making�is�shown�in�other�ways.�The�findings�
from�BRACED-X�suggest�it�can�be�supported�through�the�use�of�shorter-term�
weather�forecasts�that�enable�anticipatory�capacity.�This�is�because�using�
short-term�forecasts�today�does�not�increase�adaptive�capacity.�Yet�establishing�
the�value�and�behaviour�of�using�short-term�forecasts�every�season�for�the�
next�20�years�can.�If�people�learn�from�what�they�are�doing�to�make�informed�
adjustments�in�actions�and�decisions�taken�on�shorter�timescales,�in�a�repeated�
manner�(over�decades),�can�help�people’s�ability�to�adapt�over�time,�even�
as�the�climate�changes.�This�is�particularly�important�in�the�absence�of�
longer-term�climate�information�at�the�local�level�(see��Box�1�).�The�opportunity�
for�anticipatory�capacity�to�build�a�foundation�for�adaptive�capacity�is�also�
reported�by�CMESA-E�in�Ethiopia.�This�is�enabled�when�a�more�inclusive�and�
sustained�approach�is�taken,�such�as�the�project�promotes�through�its�National�
Framework�for�Climate�Services�(NFCS).�Feedback�mechanisms�between�provider�
and�end-user�are�fully�embedded�into�the�process�and�supported�by�relevant�
institutions�to�continuously�improve�and�make�adjustments�based�on�users’�
feedback.�Ensuring�climate�services�remain�accessible,�responsive�and�relevant�
to�all�user�groups�over�time,�can�enable�adaptive�capacity.
These�examples�demonstrate�a�need�to�think�beyond�activities�for�adaptive�
capacity,�and�instead�consider�the�factors,�processes�and�behaviours�that�
underpin�it.�Measuring�changes�in�people’s�perceptions,�attitudes�and�ability�
to�make�more�informed�decisions,�such�as�those�based�on�weather�and�seasonal�
forecast�information�over�time,�is�essential�when�measuring�adaptive�capacity.�
This�challenges�the�current�emphasis�on�primarily�measuring�outcomes�in�terms�
of�resources�and�assets,�with�M&E�efforts�to�assess�adaptive�capacity�in�terms�
of�process�and�outcomes.
Still,�while�using�short-term�forecasts�may�help�bring�about�behaviour�
change�and�build�a�culture�of�evidence-based�decision�making,�this�may�
be�undermined�by�climate�information�not�being�available�in�time�to�be�able�
to�use�it�to�make�decisions�(see��Box�1�).�This�highlights�the�importance�of�not�
only�viewing�adaptive�capacity�(and�resilience-building)�as�a�process�as�well�
as�an�outcome,�but�also�understanding�that�activities�need�to�be�sequenced�
and�timed�right,�in�order�to�get�the�foundations�in�place�for�change�further�
down�the�line.�As�such,�resilience�outcomes�are�not�‘proven’�until�they�
have�withstood�a�number�of�seasons,�years,�or�cycles,�and�further�still�until�
adjustment�and�improvement�over�time�are�demonstrated.
The�BRACED�extension�has�also�enabled�projects�to�consolidate�
achievements�(Box�2).
31ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� resiLience outcomes
Box�2:�Deep�dive�findings�in�focus�–�adaptive�capacity�and�sustainability�
are�closely�linked
BRACED-X�has�enabled�projects�to�strengthen�adaptive�capacity�outcomes,�
such�as�diversified�income�and�incorporation�of�climate-smart�technologies�
and�innovations.�These�changes�enable�communities�to�plan,�prepare�and�
ensure�improved�flexibility�into�the�future.�However:
•� More�time�does�not�necessarily�lead�to�more�adaptive�outcomes,�but�
has�allowed�projects�to�build�on�what�has�been�achieved,�to�improve�
the�potential�sustainability�of�results�beyond�the�lifetime�of�projects.
•� The�key�value�of�the�extension�phase�was�that�it�provided�projects�
with�the�time�and�resources�to�do�so.
•� Projects’�approach�to�enhancing�adaptive�capacity�in�the�long�term�
has�therefore�been�primarily�addressed�by�securing�and�ensuring�the�
sustainability�of�activities�implemented.
�Section�4.2.3��explores�this�finding�in�more�depth,�with�this�report�
acknowledging�the�difficulties�of�making�a�judgement�about�sustainability�
after�such�a�short�period�of�implementation.��Section�4.2.3��emphasises�that�
questions�remain�over�whether�what�is�being�sustained�is�the�right�thing�
for�resilience-building,�and�how�adaptive,�flexible�and�dynamic�interventions�
can�be�to�changing�climate�challenges.
3.2.3�It�is�about�timing�and�flexibility,�not�only�duration
This�report�demonstrates�that�the�additional�time�of�BRACED-X�has�been�integral�
to�strengthening�what�was�achieved�during�the�BRACED�programme.�However,�
it�is�not�only�duration�that�matters�for�enabling�adaptive�capacity�and�resilience�
overall.�BRACED-X�demonstrates�that�timing�and�flexibility�are�also�important,�
if�not�more�so,�than�duration�of�implementation�alone.
A�number�of�projects�reported�they�were�often�constrained�by�the�project�
management�cycles�and�processes�of�the�BRACED�programme,�which,�in�reality,�
did�not�align�with�cycles�relating�to�agriculture,�government�planning,�or�national�
and�local�policy�processes�they�were�seeking�to�influence.�This�affected�project�
progress�(Box�3).
32ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� resiLience outcomes
Box�3:�Processes�that�affected�BRACED-X�projects’�ability�to�implement�
in�set�timeframes
•� CMESA-E:�Endorsement�of�the�NFCS�took�longer�than�expected�given�
the�level�of�engagement�required�and�considerable�political�changes�
faced,�including�changes�in�government�officials.
•� Livestock�Mobility:�Local�officials�were�not�available�to�participate�
in�project�activities�pre-�and�post-election.
•� SUR1M:�The�Natural�Resource�Management�Convention�took�
considerably�longer�to�sign�due�to�the�need�for�a�series�of�community-
based�workshops,�which�took�time�and�resources,�and�needed�to�be�
scheduled�around�access�and�calendar�constraints.
•� PROGRESS:�Project�activities�were�disrupted�by�the�2017�election,�
including�delayed�disbursements�of�funds�to�counties�and�communities.
•� Anukulan:�BRACED’s�implementation�year�ran�from�April�to�March,�
whereas�the�Government�of�Nepal’s�planning�cycle�ran�from�July�to�June.�
This�presented�challenges�for�agreeing�and�planning�activities�in�advance�
and�put�an�extra�burden�on�reporting�as�well.
Achieving�improvements�in�productivity�requires�flexibility,�rather�than�just�
more�time,�to�work�with�the�farming�calendar.�Achieving�policy�change�likewise�
requires�the�flexibility�to�be�able�to�work�within�cycles�of�policy�processes�and�
take�advantage�of�policy�‘moments’�that�can�increase�the�likelihood�of�timely�
policy�changes�in�favour�of�local�communities.�In�the�absence�of�projects�being�
able�to�set�their�own�timelines�and�annual�calendars�under�BRACED,�giving�
projects�more�flexibility�to�be�able�to�schedule�activities�around�when�they�
will�have�the�most�impact,�rather�than�working�around�more�conventional,�
but�often�limiting,�implementation�schedules�imposed�by�donors,�is�beneficial.�
This�is�particularly�important�for�projects�such�as�BRACED�working�in�consortia�
and�using�inclusive�and�partnership-based�approaches�(Box�4).�Projects�will�
have�more�impact�if�their�workplans�are�aligned�with�the�stakeholders�they�are�
working�with�and�the�processes�they�are�working�on.
33ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� resiLience outcomes
Box�4:�Deep�dive�findings�in�focus�–�to�what�extent�can�consortia�projects�
be�adaptive?
BRACED-X�projects�have,�to�some�extent,�been�responsive�and�adaptive�
to�local�challenges.�In�some�cases,�this�has�been�demonstrated�by�allowing�
partner�roles�to�shift�and�flex,�so�that�external�events�did�not�undermine�
project�gains.
Livestock mobility is one project that experienced a deterioration in context
during braced-x. there were increased security threats in burkina Faso
and mali, and a humanitarian crisis in southern burkina Faso. these changes
challenged pastoralists and their access to livestock corridors and resources
the project enabled. to minimise disruption to project delivery, the project
altered its strategy. recoPa east, one of the project’s local delivery partners
in burkina Faso, scaled back training on pastoralism with communities,
diverted livestock routes to avoid conflict areas, and embedded liaison officers
within communities to monitor the situation. Limited services were able to
continue, such as around animal health, by linking with partner vsF-belgium
and communicating regularly with other local delivery partners, such as aPess
in the north of the country. the project reported that the�large�size�of�their�
consortium, compared�with�others�under�BRACED-X,�and�its�diverse�yet�
strategic�composition�was�critical�to�ensuring�flexibility�and�successful�
response�to�these�events.�This�demonstrates�the�importance�of�selecting�
the�right�partners,�and�having�time�to�build�trust,�so�that�results�can�be�
achieved�that�could�not�be�attained�alone.
Conventional�project�designs�and�contracts�limit�the�scope�for�adaptive�
management.�This�example�shows�BRACED-X�projects�have�achieved�
valuable�accomplishments�and�undertaken�necessary�adjustments�to�
support�project�progress.�Yet�BRACED�provides,�at�best,�ad�hoc�examples�
of�adaptation,�mostly�focusing�on�course�correction�in�order�to�meet�
deliverables�and�deadlines,�rather�than�adapting�and�experimenting�by�
strategic�design.�Adapting�by�default30�and�making�reactive,�tactical31�
tweaks�to�improve�performance�only�gets�consortia�projects�so�far.�They�
have�not�consciously�built�adaptive�competences�or�processes�or�structured�
themselves�to�be�flexible�from�the�outset�in�ways�that�allow�projects�
to�be�truly�dynamic�and�meet�emerging�challenges.�Nor�have�projects�
built�a�foundation�to�develop�a�deep�appreciation�for�iteration,�failure�
and�learning�that�is�at�the�core�of�adaptive�management�and�resilience�
30 wild, L., booth, d., valters, c. (2017) Putting theory into practice. How dFid is doing development differently. London: odi.
31 o’donnell, m. (2016) adaptive management: what it means for csos. bond.
34ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� resiLience outcomes
programming.32�This�is�largely�because�projects�were�never�required�to�do�so�
and�were�bound�by�conventional�contracts�and�expectations,�which�limits�the�
extent�programmes�like�BRACED�can�make�adaptive�management�a�reality.�
BRACED�was�not�designed�as�an�adaptive�management�programme�from�the�
start,�but�it�was�expected�to�perform�like�one�and�there�remains�an�external�
expectation�that�it�is.�The�reality�of�the�possibilities,�as�well�as�the�constraints�
of�adaptive�capacity�in�large�programmes,�needs�to�be�better�understood.
32 kasper, g. and marcoux, J. (2014) the re-emerging art of funding innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
35ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
This�section�introduces�the�transformational�outcomes�achieved�under�
BRACED-X�at�the�programme�level.�The�following�sub-sections�present�the�
analysis�and�reflection�on�findings�and�discusses�key�insights�and�emerging�
issues�in�supporting�the�likelihood�of�transformation.
Summary�of�findings
•� Contributions�to�transformational�change�continue�to�be�shown�through�
the�expansion�of�activities�beyond�the�geographical�remit�and�direct�sphere�
of�project�influence.
•� There�is�strong�evidence�of�women’s�inclusion�across�projects,�but�little�
evidence�of�empowerment�of�marginalised�groups�that�fosters�equality�
in�a�way�that�enables�resilience.
•� The�outcome�level�assumption�of�the�BRACED-X�ToC�holds�true,�as�results�
suggest�that�the�potential�for�transformational�change�is�not�a�capacity�
the�same�as�the�other�3As.
•� BRACED,�as�a�programme�overall,�has�not�achieved�substantial�policy�
change,�but�projects�have�had�some�success�in�creating�an�enabling�
4.�TRANSFORMATIONAL�IMPACT:�WHAT�HAS�BEEN�ACHIEVED?image: James morgan / Panos
36ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
environment�for�policy�engagement�at�the�local�level.�However,�given�
limited�progress�to�date,�the�underlying�assumption�that�both�bottom-up�
and�top-down�approaches�are�required�to�influence�policy�change�remains�
untested.�Beyond�concrete�policy�change,�BRACED�shows�that�changing�
attitudes�can�also�trigger�transformation.
•� Projects�have�taken�care�to�implement�in�ways�that�engender�ownership�
and�longevity�of�activities�and�outcomes.�Yet�the�way�sustainability�
is�understood,�and�the�barriers�to�it,�challenge�the�extent�BRACED�
investments�have�the�potential�to�endure.
What�is�transformational�change�in�BRACED?
Transformation�represents�an�outcome�related�to�fundamental�ways�in�which�
people’s�capacity�to�adapt�to,�anticipate�and�absorb�shocks�can�be�built,�
reshaped�and�enhanced.�To�demonstrate�the�potential�for�transformation,�
any�initiative�must�achieve�three�essential�results:
1.� Catalytic�effect:�these�imply�the�ability�to�leverage�change�beyond�
the�direct�project�activities.
2.� Scalable�impact:�when�interventions�are�used�at�a�greater�scale�or�
in�integrated�combinations�with�much�larger�effects�than�before.
3.� Sustainable�outcomes:�when�processes�of�resilience�building�
are�sustained�after�BRACED�support�ends�for�particular�projects.
Apart�from�being�catalytic,�at�scale,�with�sustainable�outcomes,�
to�demonstrate�the�potential�for�transformation,�BRACED�projects�
must�influence:
4.� Social�and�governance�relations�towards�downwards�accountability,�
equality�and�transparency.
4.1�Salient�resultsAll�projects�under�the�extension�phase�reported�that�the�likelihood�of�
transformational�change�had�continued.�This�was�demonstrated�by�the�extent�
projects�produced�catalytic�impacts,�change�at�scale,�and�fostered�equality�and�
social�inclusion�–�yet,�most�of�all,�promoted�sustainability,�which�IPs�typically�
interpreted�as�ensuring�the�continuity�of�activities�and�benefits�achieved�after�
programme�close.
37ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
4.1.1�Catalytic�effects�and�impacts�at�scale
As�in�Year�3�of�BRACED,�clear�illustrations�of�projects�delivering�the�
likelihood�of�transformation�are�provided�through�reporting�on�catalytic�
impacts.�Under�BRACED-X,�this�remains�predominately�evidenced�through�
expansion�of�project�activities�beyond�the�geographical�remit�and�direct�
sphere�of�the�project’s�influence.
Five�projects�reported�instances�of�activities�being�replicated�by�neighbouring�
people�and�communities�with�no�support�from�the�project.33�For�instance,�
this�meant�that�BRES�reached�7,872�farmers�in�total,�who�were�incentivised�
by�an�initial�group�of�192�lead�farmers�to�adopt�Zai�agricultural�techniques.
Four�projects34�also�reported�securing�co-finance�for�activities�from�sources�
other�than�BRACED-X,�such�as�county�governments,�municipalities�or�other�
donors.�This�enabled�interventions�to�reach�other�communities�not�directly�
targeted�by�projects.�For�example,�Anukulan�reported�how,�on�seeing�the�
benefits�of�the�Multiple�Use�water�Systems�(MUS),�farmers�of�adjoining�
villages�requested�them.�The�municipality�started�construction�on�two�MUS�
installations�with�its�own�financial�resources,�which�the�project�reported�also�
supports�the�sustainability�of�the�intervention�(see��Section�4.1.4�).�PROGRESS�
likewise�used�BRACED-X�to�replicate�and�sustain�its�interventions.�The�project�
established�a�further�seven�Ward�Adaptation�Planning�Committees�(WAPCs),�
adding�to�eight�already�established�under�BRACED,�now�covering�over�half�of�
Wajir�county�in�Kenya.��Section�4.1.4��illustrates�that�these�committees�have�the�
potential�to�continue�post-project�completion,�as�similar�to�Anukulan,�they�
are�embedded�within�government�structures�and�plans.
To�demonstrate�impact�at�scale,�projects�reported�activities�achieving�
influence�beyond�the�local�level.�This�represents�project�progress�compared�
to�the�last�year�of�BRACED,�even�if�this�component�of�transformation�still�
remains�the�most�unclear�for�projects�to�report�against.35
In�Senegal,�for�example,�DCF�demonstrated�that�the�project�had�a�gradual�
influence�at�the�local�and�national�level.�For�instance,�one�of�the�tasks�of�the�
newly�established�platform�in�Senegal�was�to�revise�the�national�guide�to�local�
planning�and�incorporate�the�climate�considerations�of�vulnerable�communities�
as�a�way�of�accommodating�their�priorities.�The�project’s�partnership�with�
the�National�Programme�for�Local�Development�was�valuable�in�enabling�
this�success,�as�it�lay�the�foundation�for�mainstreaming�climate�considerations�
into�local�development.�In�Mali,�it�was�DCF’s�relationship�with�ANICT,�the�
financial�arm�of�the�Ministry�of�Decentralisation,�that�was�key�to�channeling�
funds�to�communities.�The�project�reported�their�support�with�ANICT’s�
33 anukulan, bres, dcF, Livestock mobility, Progress.
34 anukulan, Livestock mobility, Progress, sur1m.
35 For further reflection on the challenges of monitoring resilience and measuring transformational change see villanueva, P. and sword-daniels, v. (2017) routes to resilience: Lessons from monitoring braced year 2 .
38ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
submission�for�direct�access�to�the�Green�Climate�Fund�(GCF)�will�likewise�
enable�change�at�scale,�by�further�strengthening�financial�access�and�the�
decision-making�capacities�of�local�governments�to�improve�communities’�
resilience�to�climate�change�impacts.
CMESA-E�in�Ethiopia�also�demonstrates�scalable�impact.�Lessons�learnt�from�
earlier�BRACED�work�in�climate�service�provision�(CIARE�and�MAR)�were�fed�into�
a�wider,�representative�consultation�process�that�has�resulted�in�a�NFCS�for�the�
country�to�move�forward�on.
4.1.2�Women’s�inclusion�and�empowerment
Where�women’s�inclusion�and�empowerment�are�concerned,�there�is�
evidence�of�targeting�and�some�inclusion�across�projects.�Anukulan�for�
example,�reported�that�in�Nepal,�the�project�had�recruited�an�increasing�
number�of�female�plant�doctors,�even�among�disadvantaged�social�groups,�
which�helped�build�relationships�with�local�farmers�and�government�officials.�
Quotas�used�in�other�BRACED-X�projects,�such�as�WYL�and�DCF,�have�also�
ensured�women�are�well�represented�in�groups�and�committees,�with�the�
extra�time�of�the�extension�enabling�projects�to�further�formalise�and�embed�
quotas�and�women’s�participation�into�local�structures.�However,�there�is�
little�evidence�of�empowerment�from�across�the�BRACED-X�portfolio�overall.
Women�have�typically�benefitted�from�projects�through�improved�income�
and�more�diverse�income-generating�activities,�often�through�direct�participation�
in�groups�such�as�village�savings�and�loans�associations�(VSLAs)�and�increased�
women’s�participation�in�community�affairs.�There�is�some�(weak)�evidence�of�
women’s�higher�incomes�derived�through�project�activities�leading�to�increased�
economic�power�within�the�household�or�higher�social�status.36�Still,�analysis�
of�more�significant�shifts,�such�as�changes�to�pre-existing�institutional�
structures�and�power�relationships�that�shape�women’s�lives�and�underpin�
their�resilience,�is�limited.
In�most�cases,�projects�were�not�able�to�change�the�underlying�context�
of�entrenched�social�norms.�For�example,�through�increased�involvement�
in�profitable�agricultural�activities,�women�tend�to�have�some�control�over�
the�income�they�have�earned�themselves,�rather�than�overall�household�incomes,�
and�women’s�earnings�tend�to�be�spent�on�healthcare�for�the�family,�household�
items�and�school�fees.�BRES�reported�that,�in�some�cases,�women�actually�took�
on�greater�responsibility�for�these�expenditures�compared�with�before,�suggesting�
some�projects�had�increased�the�work�burden�of�women�as�a�result�of�targeted�
project�activities�–�a�potential�negative�unintended�consequence.�Similarly,�
for�WYL�in�Mali,�deep-rooted�socio-cultural�factors�that�limit�women’s�access�
to�income-generating�activities,�basic�social�services�and�training,�and�constrain�
their�participation�and�decision�making�in�public�spaces,�acted�as�barriers�
to�project�effectiveness.
36 sur1m.
39ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
The�majority�of�BRACED-X�projects�primarily�focused�on�women�as�the�
vulnerable�group.�However,�a�smaller�number�of�projects�worked�on�inclusion,�
and�to�a�lesser�extent�equality,�of�other�underserved�and�socially�marginalised�
groups.37�MAR�is�one�example,�where�the�focus�of�reach�was�on�pastoralists�
and�agro-pastoralists�living�in�remote�areas�of�Ethiopia.�For�PROGRESS,�
the�project�targeted�people�living�with�disability�as�part�of�their�policy�work.�
However,�evidence�of�empowerment�of�these�groups�is�also�limited.
4.1.3�Policy�change�from�the�bottom�up
BRACED-X�enabled�five�projects�to�pursue�policy�change�to�support�
BRACED�outcomes.38�While�evidence�of�actual�legislative�policy�change�
is�limited,�projects�made�steady�progress�against�the�foundations�identified�
on�the�ToC�pathway�for�policy�change.�This�includes�building�relationships�
with�key�policy�actors;�convening�actors�and�facilitating�dialogue�towards�
changes�in�policy�discourse;�and�influencing�the�integration�of�expertise�
relevant�for�resilience-building,39�such�as�by�institutionalising�pilots�into�
existing�government�plans.40�Progress�against�each�of�these�aspects�
is�summarised�below.
BUILDING�RELATIONSHIPS�WITH�KEY�POLICY�ACTORS
BRACED-X�projects�operating�under�the�policy�window�of�the�extension,�
built�relationships�with�and�between�key�policy�stakeholders�through�local41�
and�international�knowledge-sharing�activities,�such�as�conferences.42�IPs�also�
spent�much�of�the�year�leveraging�relationships�they�had�built�during�BRACED�
to�bring�together�stakeholders�from�different�sectors�and�scales�in�workshops�
and�site�visits.�These�activities�helped�create�a�shared�understanding�of�target�
policy�issues�and�secured�buy-in�of�BRACED-X�projects�and�their�approach�
to�resilience-building�from�key�stakeholders�involved�in�policy.43
For�example,�CMESA-E�conducted�subnational�and�national�workshops,�
which�brought�together�local�and�national�government�representatives�and�
professionals�to�raise�awareness�of�the�project’s�NFCS.�Participants�represented�
a�range�of�sectors�which�included�agriculture�and�food�security,�water,�irrigation�
and�electricity,�disaster�risk�management�and�health.�The�workshops�were�
successful�at�generating�understanding�of�climate�services�and�identifying�
climate�policy�gaps�and�sector-specific�priorities.�At�the�end�of�one�workshop,�
participants�agreed�on�the�need�to�establish�a�steering�committee�and�
37 mar, Livestock mobility, anukulan, Progress.
38 dcF, cmesa-e, Livestock mobility, anukulan, Progress.
39 Livestock mobility, dcF, anukulan, Progress.
40 Progress, anukulan.
41 Livestock mobility, dcF, anukulan, Progress, cmesa-e.
42 Livestock mobility, dcF, anukulan.
43 Livestock mobility, dcF, anukulan, Progress, cmesa-e.
40ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
technical�sub-working�groups�to�develop�the�framework�(which�was�endorsed�
by�the�government�of�Ethiopia�in�July�2019).
Evidence�of�buy-in�of�BRACED-X�projects�is�also�shown�to�provide�an�
entry�point�into�policy�dialogues�and�processes,�based�on�new�or�improved�
relationships�between�project�partners�and�stakeholders�instrumental�
in�influencing�policy�(Box�5).44
Box�5:�Strategic�partnerships�impact�on�pastoralism�policy�in�the�Sahel
Pastoralism,�and�cross-border�transhumance�in�particular,�is�a�significant�
source�of�contention�in�the�Sahel�region,�with�national�and�sub-regional�
policy�makers�discussing�pastoralism,�agro-pastoralism,�mobility�and�regional�
integration.�A�key�stakeholder�in�these�discussions�is�CILSS,�based�on�its�
role�in�managing�major�regional�pastoralism�programmes.�These�include�
the�Regional�Sahel�Pastoralism�Support�Project�(PRAPS),�the�Integrated�
and�Sustainable�Livestock�Farming�and�Pastoralism�in�West�Africa�Project�
(PEPISAO),�and�the�Regional�Dialogue�and�Investment�Project�for�Pastoralism�
and�Transhumance�in�the�Sahel�and�Coastal�Countries�of�West�Africa�
(PREDIP).�Livestock�Mobility�strengthened�its�consortia�in�BRACED-X�by�
purposefully�aligning�with�CILSS,�enabling�the�project�to�participate�in�wider�
policy�discussions�and�regional�level�programmes�focused�on�pastoralism�
issues.�Acting�for�Life,�the�consortia�lead,�reported�this�partnership�was�
central�to�the�project’s�success.
For�example,�during�Livestock�Mobility’s�first�policy�workshop�at�Ferkés-
sedougou,�Côte�d’Ivoire,�CILSS�convened�representatives�from�PRAPS,�
PEPISAO�and�PREDIP,�and�facilitated�a�discussion�around�how�development�
projects�operating�in�the�same�trans-border�region�could�work�together�more�
efficiently.�As�a�result,�Livestock�Mobility’s�technical�expertise�in�livestock�
markets,�and�the�project’s�trans-border�committees,�were�incorporated�
into�existing�trans-border�consultation�frameworks�in�regions�that�
overlap�with�the�BRACED�implementation�zone.
CONVENING�ACTORS�AND�FACILITATING�DIALOGUE�TOWARDS�CHANGES�IN�POLICY�DISCOURSE
Demonstration�efforts�of�successful�community-level�investments�supported�by�
BRACED�and�the�extension,�resulted�in�increased�awareness�of�resilience-building�
and,�in�turn,�commitments�to�improve�policy.45�For�example,�Anukulan�organised�
for�subnational�and�national�government�officials�to�visit�sites�undertaking�the�
44 Livestock mobility, anukulan, cmesa-e.
45 Livestock mobility, anukulan, dcF.
41ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
project’s�commercial�pocket�approach�(CPA).�As�a�result�of�improved�knowledge�
of�the�benefits�of�CPA,�government�officials�from�Amargadhi�municipality�in�
Nepal�advised�to�replicate�CPA�throughout�the�municipality.�The�development�of�
livelihood�activities�for�Dalits�and�other�marginalised�groups�were�also�instructed.
Livestock�Mobility�also�provides�an�example�of�how�facilitating�dialogue�has�
been�effective�in�influencing�policy�discourse.�The�project�convened�a�regional�
discussion�for�a�range�of�stakeholders�around�the�livestock�value�chain�in�West�
Africa.�This�led�to�a�Memorandum�of�Understanding�being�signed�between�the�
governments�of�Togo�and�Ghana,�to�exchange�knowledge�and�develop�a�Plan�
for�Transhumance.�It�is�yet�to�be�seen�however�if�these�commitments�actually�
result�in�improved�policy.
INFLUENCING�THE�INTEGRATION�OF�EXPERTISE�RELEVANT�FOR�RESILIENCE-BUILDING
IPs�have�worked�to�institutionalise�the�inclusion�of�BRACED-X�stakeholders�
in�policy�discourse.46�For�example,�the�governor�of�Mopti�in�Mali�revised�the�
staffing�of�the�Regional�Commission�to�include�new�members�from�the�Regional�
Development�Agency�(ARD)�and�National�Agency�for�Local�Government�
Investment�(ANICT)�Regional�Office,�both�of�whom�are�key�partners�of�DCF.�
The�project�reported�this�representation�will�ensure�that�decision-making�
processes�in�Mopti�will�include�the�input�of�stakeholders�involved�in�DCF�beyond�
the�project�period,�which�will�ensure�a�maintained�focus�on�resilience-building.
BRACED-X�projects�have�had�some�success�in�integrating�their�technical�
expertise�and�evidence�into�guidelines�and�frameworks,47�and�getting�their�pilot�
interventions�integrated�into�government�plans.48�For�example,�in�PROGRESS,�
the�Kenyan�government�has�adopted�both�the�WAPC�and�the�decentralised�
climate�finance�models�supported�by�BRACED�in�Wajir�county.�These�approaches�
will�be�scaled�up�across�the�country�as�a�result,�with�government�involvement�
also�providing�a�foundation�for�sustainability�(see��Section�4.1.4�).
Understanding�the�extent�BRACED-X�projects�have�enabled�change�related�
to�policy�from�the�‘bottom�up’�is�not�the�only�evidence�generated�around�
policy�change�under�BRACED-X.�There�is�also�evidence�of�what�the�‘top-down’�
investment�from�the�extension�phase�has�achieved�in�supporting�national�and�
local�government�capacity,�through�its�policy�dialogues�and�influencing�processes�
at�the�national�level,�led�by�the�FM.49�A�summary�of�insights�emerging�at�the�
time�of�writing�from�Kenya�and�Nepal�is�presented�in�Box�6.�Although�not�a�key�
focus�of�this�report,�the�findings�are�important.�They�link�to�and�build�on�existing�
policy�work�led�by�projects,�to�explore�whether�IPs�have�contributed�to�changes�
in�policy�around�resilience�at�the�national�level.
46 dcF, anukulan, cmesa-e, Progress.
47 Livestock mobility, dcF, anukulan, Progress.
48 Progress, anukulan.
49 wilson, d. et al. (forthcoming) national level policy engagement under braced: Lessons from kenya, mali and nepal.
42ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
Box�6:�National-level�policy�engagement�and�the�effect�of�BRACED�
on�policy�change
Overall,�national�policy�dialogues�appear�to�be�relevant,�timely�and�
aligned�with�national�priorities.�However,�evidence�from�national-level�
dialogues�examined�in�Nepal�and�Kenya�suggests�that,�while�there�may�
have�been�some�indicative�policy�relevant�changes,�the�degree�to�which�
the�dialogues�contributed�to�these�is�unclear.�During�the�course�of�the�
18-month�implementation�period�of�the�national-level�policy�work,�no�
concrete�evidence�emerged�to�suggest�policy�change,�as�conceived�under�
BRACED-X,50�had�been�brought�about�as�a�direct�result�of�the�dialogues�
in�these�two�countries.
In�Kenya,�the�scaling�out�of�the�County�Climate�Change�Fund�(CCCF)�to�
all�counties�requires�a�legislative�change,�which�appears�to�be�underway.�
Yet�this�work�was�already�in�motion,�and,�while�there�may�have�been�
some�contribution�of�the�national-level�policy�work,�it�was�very�late�in�
the�process�and�impossible�to�determine�with�any�certainty.�In�Nepal,�there�
are�positive�signs�of�vertical�integration�of�BRACED-X�project�interventions�
into�government�programmes,�but�there�is�no�evidence�of�this�translating�
into�policy�change.
The�fact�that�there�is�little�evidence�of�policy�outcomes�being�achieved�
from�the�national�level�is�largely�due�to�the�short�implementation�window�
of�18�months.�This�stream�of�work�was�built�from�scratch�during�the�
extension�phase.�It�was�unable�to�build�on�foundations�laid�from�the�previous�
three�years�of�implementation�in�BRACED,�which�this�report�demonstrates�
has�been�instrumental�to�enabling�other�achievements�under�BRACED-X.
Still,�while�there�is�limited�progress�from�national�level�efforts�towards�
resilient�or�transformational�policy�outcomes,�the�engagement�of�key�
actors�and�raised�awareness�of�actors�to�the�efficacy�and�value�of�adopting�
a�resilience�approach�to�tackling�intractable,�national�policy�issues�is,�in�itself,�
a�positive�foundation�for�potential�future�change.�This�will�not,�however,�
be�detectable�within�the�lifetime�of�the�BRACED�programme.
50 the policy work at national level has adopted a broad definition of policy change, which is not limited to actual legislative change: 1. Framing�debates and getting issues on the national political agenda by drawing attention to new problems with evidence and new knowledge; 2. Influencing�behaviour change of policy and non-policy actors so that policies are effectively implemented and make use of evidence to inform implementation; and 3. Legislative�change, such as changes in regional and national budget al.ocations, or the passage of new legislation and/or ministerial policy positions.
43ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
4.1.4�Sustainability
The�BRACED�extension�reveals�there�are�different�routes�to�sustainability.�Each�
project�reported�the�potential�for�interventions�to�be�sustained,�demonstrated�
through�a�combination�of�top-down�and�bottom-up�strategies.�Efforts�range�
from�entire�models�being�taken�up�and�funded�by�local,�regional�or�national�
government,�to�some�aiming�for�local�non-governmental�organisations�(NGOs)�
or�other�donors�to�continue�interventions�after�BRACED-X�ends.51�Table�3�shows�
that�evidence�from�IPs�points�to�five�common�approaches�used�to�promote�the�
potential�for�sustainability�during�the�lifetime�of�their�projects.�Each�approach�
is�explored�in�turn�below.
Table�3:�The�main�approaches�used�by�BRACED-X�projects�to�promote�the�potential�for�sustainability
approach projects using each approach number of projects
influencing government systems that frame resilience and embedding approaches or models within existing structures and plans
Livestock mobility, Progress, anukulan, sur1m, wyL, mar, bres, dcF, cmesa-e
9
Partnering with the private sector Livestock mobility, Progress, anukulan, sur1m, wyL, bres, mar
7
ensuring community ownership bres, Livestock mobility, anukulan, sur1m, Progress, wyL, dcF
7
securing additional finance by linking with other development assistance projects and programmes, or with project partners
Livestock mobility, sur1m, anukulan, dcF
4
creating access to markets and credit opportunities by formalising local producers or savings groups
bres, mar, sur1m, wyL 4
INFLUENCING�GOVERNMENT�SYSTEMS�THAT�FRAME�RESILIENCE�AND�EMBEDDING�APPROACHES�OR�MODELS�WITHIN�EXISTING�STRUCTURES�AND�PLANS
In�Kenya,�PROGRESS�continued�to�align�its�WAPCs�with�government�legislation,�
in�the�form�of�the�2016�Climate�Change�Bill�of�the�Government�of�Wajir�County.�
Responding�to�this�window�of�opportunity�that�arose�in�2016,�and�redesigning�
the�intervention�to�better�fit�the�local�context,�is�what�the�project�reported�as�
central�to�its�sustained�benefit�–�that�is,�communities�can�keep�qualifying�for�
and�receiving�county�adaptation�funding�to�implement�their�adaptation�plans,�
particularly�against�drought,�which�they�could�not�do�on�their�own.�In�this�case,�
the�potential�for�sustainability�is�that�the�approach�is�still�politically�feasible,�
with�the�mandate�and�institutional�capacity�in�place�for�durability.52
51 sur1m and Progress.
52 the county government is responsible for disbursing the annual budget from its domestic funds, 2% of which targets community-identified activities, as well as supporting waPcs through its county climate change steering committee.
44ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
The�evidence�from�BRACED-X�demonstrates�that�sustainability�is�also�promoted�
through�a�cumulative�process�from�which�government�builds�commitment�
and�trust�over�time.�In�the�Sahel,�Livestock�Mobility�reported�a�series�of�steps�
through�which�sustainability�unfolds�in�this�way.�Shifting�negative�attitudes�
and�mindsets�of�government�(and�private�sector�actors)�towards�pastoralists�
was�an�important�first�step.�This�incentivised�government�and�private�sector�
stakeholders�to�collaborate�and�come�together�to�form�a�common�vision�of�
trans-border�livestock�mobility,�which�had�not�been�observed�in�the�region�
before.�As�part�of�this�process,�the�management�of�pastoral�resources�has�
been�included�in�local�and�national�government�planning.
Other�ways�in�which�projects�secured�government�recognition�include�
showcasing�their�efforts�to�government�actors,�as�the�case�of�Anukulan�
demonstrates�(see��Section�4.1.3�).�This�strategy�has�been�valuable�for�the�
successful�phase-over�of�responsibilities�formerly�supported�by�the�project�
for�a�number�of�interventions.53�A�number�of�projects�also�built�the�capacity�
of�government�actors,54�to�promote�sustainability�and�build�trust.�Purposefully�
aligning�activities�with�work�already�undertaken�at�local�government�level�
was�also�carried�out,�on�the�premise�that�dedicated�resources�in�place�
can�help�support�the�continuity�of�interventions.55
These�examples�demonstrate�that�laying�robust�foundations�promoting�the�
potential�for�sustainability�beyond�the�lifetime�of�projects�requires�creating�
an�enabling�environment�within�the�project�timeframe.�This�depends�in�part,�
on�successful�partnerships�with�government�actors,�and�building�their�trust�
and�commitment,�so�that�project�interventions�can�more�likely�continue�
once�projects�end.�Sustainable�outcomes�also�require�projects�to�actively�
promote�accountability�and�local�ownership�of�activities,�supported�by�
political�mandates,�will�and�capacity�to�act.
PARTNERING�WITH�THE�PRIVATE�SECTOR
Seven56�out�of�nine�projects�reported�that�they�aimed�to�promote�
sustainability�through�partnering�with�private�sector�actors.�This�was�most�
typically�done�in�relation�to�value�chains�and�market�linkages,�where�financial�
incentives�provide�motivation�to�continue�offering�services�established�by�
projects.�Notable�among�this�group�of�projects�is�PROGRESS�(Box�7).
53 this includes anukulan’s plant doctor clinics. the length of time government funding will continue is not known, but in kanchanpur, government officials have formally committed to conduct at least one plant clinic per month, using anukulan-trained plant doctors.
54 Progress, mar, anukulan, dcF.
55 mar.
56 Livestock mobility, Progress, anukulan, sur1m, wyL, bres, mar.
45ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
Box�7:�The�multiplier�effect�of�private�sector�investment�delivering�
potential�benefits�over�time
In�Kenya,�various�private�sector�actors�have�invested�in�milk�transportation�
generated�by�women’s�milk�trading�cooperates�in�two�milk�supply�corridors�
in�Wajir.�This�will�enable�camel�milk�producers,�mainly�women,�to�continue�
increasing�their�income�and�enhance�their�adaptive�and�absorptive�
capacity.57�Incentivised�by�this�result,�and�the�commitment�of�other�private�
sector�players,�Nourishing�Nomads�Limited�(NNL),�a�Kenyan�company�run�
by�a�local�entrepreneur,�responded�positively�and�will�also�build�a�modern�
milk�processing�plant�in�Wajir�town�(at�a�total�cost�of�£1.5�million).�NNL�
previously�supported�the�project�under�BRACED�by�building�camel�milk�solar�
chilling�and�bulking�kiosks.�Underpinning�this�success�is�the�project’s�phased�
exit�strategy,�developed�in�Year�2�of�BRACED,�following�its�Mid-Term�Review,�
and�an�in-depth�contextual�analysis.�These�identified�gaps�in�the�market�and�
strategic�partnerships�promoting�the�likelihood�of�sustainability.�Mid-term�
reviews�often�underpin�key�moments�for�identifying�change�for�BRACED�
IPs�and�provide�an�important�opportunity�for�shifting�direction�based�
on�mid-length�lessons�learnt.
Another�useful�illustration�of�private�sector�engagement�relates�to�sustainability�
in�the�context�of�climate�information.�In�this�instance,�private�sector�involvement�
can�play�out�in�different�ways,�which�might�not�always�be�useful�for�enhancing�
resilience�long�term.
WYL�partnered�with�a�private�company,�IGNITIA,�to�generate�weather�forecasts,�
rather�than�the�National�Meteorological�Service.�The�project�also�worked�
with�Orange,�the�mobile�phone�provider,�to�distribute�the�forecasts,�with�the�
business�model�viable�enough�to�last�post-project�close.�49%�of�farmers�who�
used�the�mobile�forecasting�platform�in�Mali�reported�they�would�pay�a�small�
fee�to�keep�receiving�the�forecasts�(FCFA�25,�equivalent�to�less�than�£0.50).�
This�is�because�they�have�proved�useful,�being�localised�and�specific�to�farmers’�
needs�compared�to�forecasts�provided�by�the�National�Meteorological�Service.
While�a�positive�achievement,�this�example�raises�questions�around�‘ethical’�
climate�services�and�the�role�of�the�private�sector�in�a�climate�services�
system.�Forecasts�from�the�private�sector�are�often�perceived�to�be�better�
due�to�increased�specificity.�Yet�the�forecasts�may�undermine�the�National�
Meteorological�Service,�which�should�have�the�sole�mandate�to�issue�warnings�
57 the project reported that enhancing the camel milk value chain had provided a new source of income for herders, milk traders and transporters along the value chain, promoting their adaptive capacity. the income could also potentially help people smooth consumption during periods of drought, building their absorptive capacity.
46ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
related�to�hazards.�If�this�convention�is�not�followed,�users�may�receive�
conflicting�messages�from�various�sources,�creating�confusion�rather�than�
inspiring�action.
Other�projects�reported�that�climate�services�would�not�continue�once�their�
projects�end,58�with�the�lack�of�sustainability�of�climate�services�in�most�cases�
possibly�undermining�the�long-term�resilience�goals�of�the�BRACED�programme.�
By�definition,�climate�services�should�be�provided�over�many�years�to�prove�
useful�(depending�on�the�level�of�detail�of�the�forecast).�This�is�because�climate�
and�weather�information�is�inherently�uncertain�and�is�unlikely�to�be�accurate�
all�of�the�time.�Climate�services�are�founded�on�users’�trust�of�the�forecasts,�
and�need�to�be�used�consistently,�over�time,�in�order�to�improve�people’s�
decision�making.�The�report�from�the�final�year�of�BRACED�demonstrated�that�
trust�was�key�to�establishing�new�partnerships�that�would�support�climate-
informed�decision�making.59�But�from�BRACED-X�we�learn�that,�in�fact,�
introducing�climate�services,�and�then�having�that�access�reduced�or�rescinded,�
may�reduce�the�likelihood�that�beneficiaries�will�trust�the�information�provided,�
or�decide�to�act�on�it�in�the�future.�Sustainability,�and�the�role�of�trust�that�
underpins�this�outcome,�is�therefore�to�be�considered�an�important�precondition�
of�an�effective�climate�service�and�should�be�prioritised�alongside�decision-
relevant�information�if�climate�services�are�to�be�incorporated�into�resilience�
projects�and�programmes.
Overall,�these�examples�demonstrate�that�laying�the�foundations�to�promote�
the�potential�for�sustainable�outcomes�beyond�the�lifetime�of�projects,�may�
require�forming�strategic�alliances�with�private�sector�entities�that�have�the�
incentive,�expertise�and�financial�capacity�to�continue�promoting�project�
benefits.�The�examples�also�demonstrate�that�sufficient�time�to�achieve�impacts�
during�the�implementation�period�is�needed.�This�can�incentivise�the�private�
sector,�and�other�funders�or�programmes,�to�expand�and�support�project�
achievements�beyond�project�lifetimes.�However,�the�role�of�the�private�sector�
in�resilience�interventions�is�to�be�carefully�considered,�particularly�around�
the�use�of�climate�services,�with�positive�effects�to�not�be�assumed.
SECURING�ADDITIONAL�FINANCE�BY�LINKING�WITH�OTHER�DEVELOPMENT�ASSISTANCE�PROJECTS�AND�PROGRAMMES�OR�WITH�PROJECT�PARTNERS
This�was�not�a�reality�for�all�IPs�at�the�time�of�data�collection,�but�four60�projects�
reported�that�communities�could�continue�to�reap�benefits�from�projects�in�
this�way.�Livestock�Mobility�is�illustrative�of�this�group�of�projects�and�has�been�
able�to�leverage�successes�achieved�under�BRACED�to�attract�funding�from�
other�donors.�The�IP�is�working�with�the�World�Bank,�the�EU�and�the�French�
58 bres and mar.
59 villanueva, P., Phillips itty, r., sword-daniels, v. (2018) routes to resilience – insights from braced final year, p. 40.
60 Livestock mobility, sur1m, anukulan, dcF.
47ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
Development�Agency�(AFD).61�One�member�of�its�consortium,�Vétérinaires�
Sans�Frontières�–�Belgium�(VSF-B),�is�also�incorporating�services�on�animal�health�
established�by�the�project�into�other�initiatives�funded�for�an�additional�two�to�
three�years.�Another�illustration�is�from�SUR1M.�The�World�Bank�will�continue�
to�work�with�the�‘SCAP-Ru’�disaster�management�groups�in�Niger,�and�the�
EU�in�Mali.62�
These�examples�point�to�the�fact�that�three�years�of�funding�and�implementation�
is�not�enough�when�considering�sustainability�and�that�longer-term�funding�
and�support�is�needed.�The�short�timeframe�of�the�BRACED�programme�makes�
it�challenging�to�ascertain�the�extent�to�which�outcomes�achieved�will�be�
sustained.�Still,�the�additional�external�financial�support�secured�by�IPs�creates�
the�time�for�project�activities�and�outcomes�to�continue�to�mature,�further�
building�evidence�on�‘what�works’�to�enhance�resilience.�This�is�valuable,�as�it�
helps�gain�a�clearer�understanding�of�what�is�to�be�sustained,�and�how�adaptive,�
flexible�and�dynamic�interventions�can�be�to�changing�climate�challenges.
ENSURING�COMMUNITY�OWNERSHIP
The�potential�for�sustainability�was�also�reported�by�seven�projects63�through�
the�strengthening�of�local�ownership�in�existing�locations.�For�some,�income�
generation�activities�are�durable�as�a�result�of�community�buy-in�and�adoption�of�
these�activities.�Individuals�now�possess�the�knowledge�and�skills�to�keep�these�
activities�that�promote�adaptive�capacity�going�without�external�project�support,�
such�as�under�BRES,�with�market�garden�production.�Alternatively,�in�Senegal�and�
Mali,�DCF�reported�community�ownership�by�the�management�and�monitoring�
committees�included�in�each�climate�adaptation�investment.�The�committees�
work�with�communities,�to�ensure�that�their�investments�remain�transparent�
and�aligned�with�their�priorities.�Finally,�Livestock�Mobility�reported�community�
ownership�through�a�continued�improvement�in�social�relations�between�
pastoralists�and�farmers.�Their�cooperation�to�secure�livestock�corridors�established�
by�the�consortium�continues�to�be�enabled�by�the�project’s�‘social�agreements’�
and�‘informed�debates.’�These�mechanisms�are�owned�and�led�by�pastoralists�and�
farmers,�enabling�this�change�in�cooperation�and�continued�reduction�in�conflict�
along�livestock�corridors�it�brings,�to�continue�once�the�project�closes.
61 Livestock mobility is working with the world bank through its regional sahel Pastoralism support Project (PraPs). it is also working with the eu/aFd-funded Pamobarma project, under the third component of the regional dialogue and investment Project for Pastoralism and transhumance in the sahel and coastal countries of west africa (PrediP). this component operates across borders in the south sahel and in the north of the coastal countries (mali, burkina Faso, niger, nigeria, benin, togo, ghana, côte d’ivoire and guinea) for 50 months. it enables partners to keep working on activities established under braced and braced-x with a budget of €13,075,353.
62 the kandaji dam project and the Food security support Project (Pasa) funded by world bank will support the scaP-rus in niger, and the Lafia/strengthening Food security Project (Proresa) project, funded by the eu, in mali.
63 bres, Livestock mobility, anukulan, sur1m, Progress, wyL, dcF.
48ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
FORMALISING�LOCAL�PRODUCERS�OR�SAVINGS�GROUPS
Lastly,�a�smaller�number�of�projects64�reported�sustainability�as�a�result�of�market�
access�and�credit�opportunities,�most�commonly�through�the�formalisation�
of�local�producers�or�savings�groups.�In�Niger�for�example,�under�SUR1M,�
Private�Service�Providers�(PSPs)�have�been�certified�and,�using�a�fee-for-service�
approach,�are�continuing�to�create�Savings�and�Internal�Lending�Community�
(SILC)�groups�beyond�those�created�by�the�project.�The�PSP�methodology�
was�specifically�developed�to�ensure�ability�to�sustain�activities�and�scale�
SILC�groups�beyond�the�limits�of�the�project’s�timeframe.
4.2�Analysis�and�reflectionThe�BRACED�ToC�hypothesises�that�people’s�capacity�to�anticipate,�
absorb�and�adapt�to�shocks�can�be�built,�enhanced,�and�reshaped�through�
transformational�changes.�Put�differently,�BRACED�intended�to�move�beyond�
supporting�incremental�changes�in�people’s�resilience,�to�support�a�more�
radical�shift�in�vulnerability�in�BRACED�project�locations.�After�three�years�of�
implementation,�BRACED�demonstrated�across�its�portfolio�that�strengthening�
communities’�resilience�capacities�could�deliver�sustainable�outcomes.�Yet�the�
evidence�was�limited,�as�the�timeframe�of�three�years�was�too�short�to�determine�
the�extent�to�which�observable�changes�are�sustainable.�It�was�expected�
that�the�extension�phase�would�enable�IPs�to�promote�the�sustainability�
of�the�resilient�outcomes�described�in��Section�3�.
4.2.1�How�can�projects�foster�equality�and�build�resilience?
The�BRACED�programme�operates�on�the�premise�that�actions�to�enhance�social�
equity�and�inclusion�are�essential,�as�inequality�undermines�resilience�and�a�just�
climate�change�response.�As�such,�inequality�is�a�component�of�transformation�
under�BRACED,�and�is�viewed�as�an�approach�to�understand�the�structural�and�
fundamental�ways�in�which�people’s�capacity�to�anticipate,�absorb�and�adapt�to�
shocks�and�stresses�can�be�enhanced.�As�the�BRACED-X�ToC�stipulates,�key�to�
promoting�equality�is�to�transform�the�power�structures�and�relationships�that�
expose�people�to�risk�and�prevents�them�from�increasing�their�capacities�for�
resilience.65�This�is�a�different�approach�to�targeting�project�activities�to�particular�
groups�of�people.�It�is�not�enough�to�simply�build�people’s�agency�through�skills,�
knowledge�and�abilities�without�the�transformation�of�power�structures�and�
relationships�that�determine�what�people�can�do,�have,�and�participate�in.66
64 bres, mar, sur1m, wyL.
65 braced (2015) monitoring and evaluation guidance notes , march. p. 54.
66 a common framework for understanding empowerment is through changes in three domains of agency, structures and relations, as per care’s (2012) good practices framework: gender analysis, recommended as a tool for gender analysis to iPs in braced’s monitoring and evaluation guidance notes, p. 64.
49ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
�Section�4.1.2��demonstrates�however,�that�most�BRACED-X�projects�
systematically�targeted�women,�through�capacity-building�and�activities,�
particularly�around�improved�or�diverse�income,�which�is�not�sufficient�
for�transformative�change�(Box�8).
Box�8:�Deep�dive�findings�in�focus�–�towards�a�more�transformative�
resilience�agenda
Strategies�and�approaches�to�tackle�the�root�causes�of�inequalities,�and�
to�empower�women�or�other�groups,�are�rarely�integrated�into�projects.�
Building�equality�and�inclusion�means�not�only�sharing�the�benefits�of�
projects,�but�also�shifting�entrenched�power�relations�and�control�over�
resources.�Hence�tackling�issues�related�to�gender�and�inclusion�requires�
strategic�approaches�to�shift�power�if�transformational�changes�are�really�
to�occur.�Projects�are�to�go�beyond�resilience�results�(disaggregated�by�
marginalised�group),�to�include�equality�as�a�specific�objective.�This�is�
an�important�distinction,�as�including�equality�as�an�expected�outcome�
requires�projects�to�design�specific�pathways�for�it,�that�are�integrated�into�
project�design�in�a�systematic�way.�The�findings�from�BRACED-X�continue�
to�demonstrate�that�it�is�still�important�to�make�an�analytical�distinction�
between�projects�that�display�‘participation’�and�‘social�inclusion’�–�the�
category�under�which�BRACED-X�projects�typically�fall�–�from�those�that�
identify�gender�and�other�forms�of�equality�as�a�key�goal�for�resilience.�
This�is�because�projects�must�truly�empower�if�they�are�to�transform.
The�findings�from�the�extension�phase�demonstrate�that�resilience�programming�
needs�to�be�better�informed�by�robust�analysis�of�who�is�vulnerable�and�why,�
and�to�design�and�implement�transformational�approaches�that�tackle�inequality�
directly�if�people’s�resilience�is�to�be�improved.�Based�on�BRACED-X�evidence,�
two�examples�here�show�how�projects�might�move�towards�this�objective.
A�CLEAR�VISION�OF�HOW�EQUALITY�CONTRIBUTES�TO�RESILIENCE�MUST�BE�ARTICULATED
Livestock�Mobility�is�an�example�of�a�project�that�did�not�work�on�the�
inequality�and�marginalisation�of�women�in�the�pastoralist�communities�with�
which�they�worked,�but�has�been�effective�in�working�towards�equality�for�
pastoralists�in�the�Sahel.�Although�the�majority�of�reporting�across�the�nine�
projects�is�still�unclear�on�how�equality�relates�to�resilience�outcomes,�Livestock�
Mobility�put�the�marginalisation�of�pastoralists�as�central�to�its�understanding�
of�resilience�in�its�project�design.�This�is�different�to�how�marginalisation�has�
been�approached�in�other�projects,�which�included�marginalised�people�in�
resilience-related�activities�and�reported�disaggregated�data.�The�focus�was�
also�not�dominated�by�activities�focusing�primarily�on�the�marginalised�group’s�
own�agency,�which�typifies�gender�work�under�BRACED-X.�Evidence�from�
50ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
other�BRACED�projects�show�that�attention�to�agency�alone�has�affected�the�
individual�and�household�level,�but�not�the�community�or�system�level,�despite�
transformation�requiring�change�beyond�individual�capabilities.�Livestock�
Mobility,�and�its�emphasis�on�marginalised�pastoralists,�has�instead�paid�more�
attention�to�power�structures�and�relations�that�frame�the�resilience�of�the�
vulnerable�and�marginalised�group,�which�is�the�direction�future�resilience�
programming�requires.
Box�9�explores�the�approach�taken�by�Livestock�Mobility.�It�presents�a�model�
from�which�other�work�on�forms�of�inequality�can�potentially�learn�and�replicate�
for�other�marginalised�communities�and�subgroups.�This�is�useful,�as�analysis�
of�the�BRACED-X�deep�dives�also�show�that�beyond�a�focus�on�gender,�future�
projects�and�programmes�need�to�do�more�to�identify�and�develop�strategies�
to�engage�with�and�address�the�inequality�of�socially�marginalised�and�remote�
or�underserved�groups,�because�climate�change�and�disasters�can�exacerbate�
existing�disparity.
Box�9:�What�can�we�learn�about�gender�and�other�equality�issues�
from�pastoralist�inequality�in�Livestock�Mobility?
The�social,�cultural�and�political�marginalisation�of�pastoralists�in�West�
Africa�has�led�to�a�significant�decline�in�pastoralism�and�high�dropout�rates,�
in�a�context�with�few�viable�alternative�livelihoods�or�jobs.�Pastoralist�
marginalisation�and�inequality�is�made�evident�by�the�fact�that�big�business�
commercial�agriculture�is�prioritised,�despite�evidence�of�lower�productivity�
and�higher�water�use�than�traditional�pastoralist�systems.67
Livestock�Mobility�started�with�two�clear�visions:
1.� That�mobility�is�the�key�for�pastoralists�to�be�more�resilient;
2.� Ways�to�transform�power�structures�that�limit�resilience�capacities�
of�pastoralists.
This�led�the�project�to�successfully�work�on�issues�of�pastoralist�
marginalisation�and�inequality�in�decision�making�and�resource�allocation�
and�management�compared�to�other�communities.
67 behnke, r. and kerven, c. (2013) counting the costs: replacing pastoralism with irrigated agriculture in the awash valley, north-eastern ethiopia. iied climate change working Paper no. 4, march.
51ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
The�model�used�by�Livestock�Mobility�to�address�the�inequality�
of�pastoralists�in�the�Sahel�can�be�conceived�as�follows:
1.� Address�misinformation�and�negative�preconceptions�
of�[the�marginalised�group];
2.� Articulate�the�positive�impacts�of�[the�marginalised�group]�
being�enabled�to�thrive,�both�benefits�to�them�and�wider�benefits�
to�society�(such�as�avoidance�of�negative�consequences�of�pastoralists�
marginalisation�and�the�new�opportunities�provided�to�others�
by�them�thriving);
3.� Include�[the�marginalised�group]�in�decision�making�in�ways�that�enable�
their�needs�to�be�considered�alongside�the�needs�of�other�groups�and�
communities,�and�not�easily�dismissed;
4.� Demonstrate�the�positive�impacts�of�better�resource�access,�better�
services,�and�longer-term�investment�and�management�by�and�for�
[the�marginalised�group];
5.� Garner�wider�stakeholder�support�for�change�at�scale.
There�is�now�an�opportunity�for�Acting�for�Life,�the�consortium�lead,�
to�see�if�its�experience�in�addressing�external�inequality�of�pastoralists�in�
wider�society�can�help�address�inequality�internal�to�pastoralist�communities�
in�the�future.�The�shared�experience�of�being�a�marginalised�community�
could�be�used�as�a�pathway�to�build�understanding�of�how�others�are�
marginalised�within�their�own�community�and�families.�Using�pastoralist�
men’s�experience�of�being�constrained�by�the�structures�and�power�held�
by�others�could�also�be�used�to�understand�and�address�the�structures�
and�power�they�hold,�and�how�it�constrains�women�in�their�own�community.
The�example�of�Livestock�Mobility�also�highlights�that�benefitting�one�group�
does�not�have�to�disadvantage�another.�Secured�access�to�resources�benefits�
pastoralists�and�local�farming�communities,�with�positive�shifts�in�social�relations�
(see��Section�4.1.4�).�In�fact,�if�done�right,�there�are�advantages�for�more�people,�
socially,�economically�and�environmentally,�by�tackling�inequality.�In�situations�
of�resource�scarcity,�such�as�BRACED-X�operating�environments,�it�is�often�hard�
to�perceive�the�benefits�of�equality.�There�is�a�common�perception�that�there�is�
not�enough�for�everyone,�and�it�is�often�wrongly�understood�that,�to�benefit�one�
group�means�to�take�away�from�another,�with�resistance�to�change�as�a�result.�
Yet�equality�is�not�about�taking�benefits�away�from�one�group�and�giving�them�
to�another.�It�is�about�finding�more�fair�ways�for�everyone�to�live�together,�and�
everyone�having�the�same�rights�and�opportunities,�so�that�no�one�is�‘left�behind’�
and�more�can�benefit�from�more�resilient�and�thriving�communities.
52ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
Overall,�projects�need�to�better�understand�the�specific�causes�of�vulnerability�
that�affect�the�individuals,�households,�and�communities�they�support,�and�
clearly�articulate�how�project�activities�contribute�to�addressing�it.�Blanket�
statements�that�women�or�any�other�marginalised�group�are�vulnerable�
are�unhelpful,�because�they�do�not�clarify�the�resilience�pathway�needed,�
and they�further�marginalise�the�contribution�of�women�and�marginalised�
groups�to�building�community�resilience.�It�is�only�by�understanding�in�
what�ways�a�whole�community’s�ability�to�thrive�is�constrained�by�a�lack�of�
agency,�limiting�structures,�and�unequal�power�relations,�that�resilience�and�
transformation�can�occur.�This�shift�in�focus�on�equality�needs�to�start�within�
donor�agencies�themselves.
POLICY�CHANGE�IS�NOT�ENOUGH;�ATTITUDINAL�CHANGES�ARE�NEEDED�TOO
Evidence�from�BRACED-X�demonstrates�that�projects�tend�to�view�policy�change�
as�the�key�modality�for�transformational�change.�However,�there�are�examples�
showing�the�role�of�changing�attitudes�as�a�trigger�for�transformation,�and�
examples�of�where�policy�change�without�attitude�change�towards�marginalised�
people�and�inequality�has�limited�impact.
In�BRACED,�changes�to�negative�or�entrenched�mindsets,�views,�perceptions�
and�beliefs�is�understood�to�be�one�of�the�pillars�of�transformational�change,68�
in�line�with�the�wider�literature�on�resilience�and�transformation.69�As�such,�
projects�that�have�contributed�to�changing�stakeholders�perceptions�–�such�
as�Livestock�Mobility�around�pastoralism�–�have�helped�build�a�foundation�
for�a�long-term�change�that�can�enable�resilience�in�ways�considered�
transformational.
Other�BRACED-X�projects�also�worked�on�changing�attitudes�and�
mindsets�and�used�approaches�such�as�forming�new�relationships,�trust-building,�
raising�the�voices�of�different�groups,�and�co-creating�knowledge�as�enablers�to�
help�change�occur.
For�example,�SUR1M�reported�that�it�organised�a�Democracy�Day�in�Mali,�which�
brought�together�a�variety�of�stakeholders:�all�village�chiefs�in�Gounzoureye�
commune,�NGO�and�service�providers�operating�in�the�area,�administrative�
authorities,�and�the�mayors�of�neighbouring�communes.�The�purpose�of�the�
approach�was�to�take�a�first�step�in�helping�to�change�the�attitudes�of�decision�
makers�by�bringing�them�into�communities�to�meet�people�and�answer�
questions,�to�better�understand�the�challenges�they�face.�This�intervention�was�
68 Francis et al. (2003) and kotter (1995) in bahadur, a., Peters, k., wilkinson, e., Pichon, F., gray, k., tanner, t. (2015) the 3as: tracking resilience across braced. London: odi.
69 bene, c., wood, g., newsham, r., davies, m. (2012) resilience: new utopia or new tyranny? reflection about the potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relation to vulnerability reduction programmes. brighton, ids. o’brien, k. (2012) global environmental change (2): From adaptation to deliberate transformation, Progress in Human Geography 36 (5): 667–76. Pelling, m. (2010) adaptation to climate change: from resilience to transformation, routledge, London.
53ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
effective,�and�in�spite�of�there�being�no�funding�for�it�from�the�project,�five�out�
of�seven�remaining�communes�have�already�replicated�the�event�using�their�
own�financial�resources.�The�remaining�two�communes�are�budgeted�to�hold�
this�event�in�2020.
An�example�of�policy�change�that�is�not�accompanied�by�the�needed�
change�in�attitudes�from�decision�makers�comes�from�PROGRESS.�The�Kenyan�
Constitution�requires�representation�of�women�in�governance�arrangements,�
which�resulted�in�30%�of�members�of�WAPCs�established�by�the�project�
being�women.�While�the�IP�anecdotally�observed�women�taking�on�more�
responsibilities�in�the�planning�process,�voicing�their�opinions�and�engaging�
in�decision�making�more�actively�than�before,�no�concrete�impacts�on�equality�
were�obvious�as�a�result�of�meeting�the�quota.�This�example�demonstrates�that�
even�with�quotas�for�women�and�agreements�to�take�forward�policy�provisions�
supporting�equality�and/or�social�inclusion,�without�changes�in�attitudes�
from�policy�makers,�the�impact�remains�limited.
4.2.2�To�what�extent�is�policy�change�possible�from�the�bottom�up?
The�BRACED-X�ToC�defines�success�for�the�policy-influencing�pathway�as�
the�contribution�projects�can�make�to�transformational�change.�This�includes�
improving�policies�and�planning�associated�with�managing�the�risk�of�climate�
extremes�and�disasters�at�national�and�subnational�level,�as�well�as�influencing�
governance�relations�towards�greater�downward�accountability�and�increased�
transparency.�Furthermore,�a�central�assumption�of�BRACED�was�that�
community-level�investments�would�eventually�lead�to�higher-level�shifts�
in�decision�making�and�policies�related�to�climate�adaptation�and�resilience.�
However,�the�evidence�from�three�years�of�BRACED�implementation�suggested�
that�change�in�policy�and�related�decision�making�was�difficult�to�achieve�
from�community-level�investment�alone,�and�likely�needed�specific�strategies�
focused�on�influencing�those�changes.�The�Policy�Window�funding,�as�a�part�
of�the�BRACED-X�extension,�was�therefore�an�opportunity�for�BRACED�projects�
to�pursue�and�implement�strategies�specifically�focused�on�policy�change.
The�ToC�recognised�that�one�year�of�implementation�would�not�be�enough�
for�policy�change.�As�such,�BRACED-X�projects�have,�overall,�not�seen�
substantial�changes�in�policy,�especially�at�the�national�and�international�
level.70�The�policy�discourses�that�BRACED-X�projects�have�been�involved�in�
were�ongoing�at�the�time�of�writing,�as�was�expected,�with�potential�changes�
in�policy�anticipated�to�occur�after�programme�implementation�ends.�Still,�
BRACED-X�projects�have�managed�to�affect�some�change�on�the�ToC�policy�
pathway�through�their�investments�at�community�level.�This�has�been�achieved�
70 this is apart from a more recent example that has been reported after data collection ended. the nFcs developed under cmesa-e was endorsed by the government of ethiopia in July 2019, with its implementation starting in 2020. the project reported this achievement demonstrates policy change, from forecast development and provision to applied climate service development.
54ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
through�the�strategies�projects�have�implemented,�with�the�majority�of�projects�
approaching�policy�change�in�similar�ways.71
First,�projects�aligned�their�policy�goals�with�emerging�or�existing�policy�
windows.�Second,�knowledge�activities�were�organised�to�create�a�shared�
understanding�of�policy�goals�and�target�issues�between�relevant�stakeholders,�
which�often�leveraged�relationships�built�during�BRACED�to�maximise�impact.�
Third,�projects�used�the�buy-in�generated�during�these�knowledge�events�
to�participate�in�or�facilitate�policy�dialogues�and�processes.�The�evidence�
suggests�projects�that�went�beyond�conducting�knowledge�activities�to�
implement�aggressive�agendas,�with�the�goal�of�achieving�specific�policy�
outcomes,�achieved�the�most�change.72�For�example,�Anukulan�was�
successful�in�integrating�disaster�risk�reduction�(DRR)�plans�into�Local�
Adaptation�Plans�of�Action�(LAPAs)�in�all�41�palikas�in�Nepal�by�working�
directly�with�local�government.�The�project�also�repeatedly�engaged�local�
and�national�government�in�its�advocacy,�which�resulted�in�the�inclusion�
of�marginalised�groups�in�the�LAPA�development�process.
Under�BRACED-X,�all�five�projects�also�focused�on�policy�change�by�
institutionalising�project�pilots�and�integrating�technical�expertise�into�policies�
and�plans�in�complimentary�ways.�Using�the�credibility�and�legitimacy�that�IP’s�
community-level�investments�had�earned�from�BRACED�was�useful�to�gain�the�
attention�of�decision�makers,�and�secure�demand�and�buy-in�for�their�pilot�
projects.�In�particular,�evidence�of�successful�community-level�investments�
supported�by�BRACED�was�critical�to�the�wider�uptake�of�project�pilots�and�
IP’s�technical�expertise,�such�as�the�WAPCs�under�PROGRESS,�trans-border�
committees�in�Livestock�Mobility,�the�CPA�in�Anukulan,�and�the�work�of�
DCF�on�climate�finance�at�the�regional�and�national�level�in�Mali�and�Senegal.�
DCF,�for�example,�explicitly�used�project�evidence�and�publicity�to�increase�
demand�from�local�governments�for�mechanisms�similar�to�those�promoted�by�
the�project,�that�increased�government�control�over�local�resilience-building�
investments�and�their�access�to�funding.�As�such,�initiatives�aimed�at�
institutionalising�project�pilots,�or�integrating�technical�expertise�into�policies�
and�plans,�had�more�success�than�projects�focused�on�creating�new�policy.
Political�change�and�instability�was�typically�reported�as�a�significant�
challenge�to�achieving�policy�change�during�BRACED�and�BRACED-X.�Yet�
the�evidence�suggests�that�change�can�be�achieved�in�challenging�political�
environments,�if�political�interests�and�ongoing�policy�dialogues�are�relevant�
to�the�policy�goals�of�the�project.73�Anukulan,�for�example,�was�able�to�progress�
with�the�integration�of�DRR�plans�into�LAPAs�despite�a�significant�restructure�
of�government�in�Nepal.�The�restructure�meant�that�LAPAs�had�to�be�updated
71 Livestock mobility, dcF, anukulan, cmesa-e.
72 anukulan, cmesa-e, Livestock mobility, dcF.
73 anukulan, Livestock mobility.
55ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
in�line�with�new�geographic�boundaries,�and�Anukulan�seized�this�opportunity�
to�change�the�discourse�around�LAPA�implementation.
Policy�is�considered�key�to�institutionalise�resilience�gains�and�sustain�the�
capacity�of�beneficiaries�to�address�different�types�of�climate-related�disturbances�
over�time.�However,�the�evidence�from�BRACED-X�shows�that�policies�need�to�
be�developed�and�actually�implemented�if�they�are�to�improve�the�resilience�
of�vulnerable�populations,�which,�on�the�whole,�did�not�happen�during�the�
extension�phase.�IPs�have�therefore�tried�to�promote�sustainability�around�their�
project�approaches,�with�the�expectation�that�they�will�lead�to�policy�outcomes�
longer�term�by�working�towards�institutionalising�inclusive�approaches�into�
decision-making�spaces,74�as�well�as�including�BRACED-X�advocates�
in�the�process.75
Overall,�the�evidence�from�community-level�investments�under�
BRACED-X�suggests�that�projects�have�had�some�success�in�creating�an�
enabling�environment�for�policy�engagement�work�to�take�place,�with�some�
early�accomplishments�in�this�area.�Yet�the�extent�to�which�investment�made�
will�be�sustainable�is�uncertain�given�the�limited�progress�to�date�on�social�
inclusion�and�policy�change.
4.2.3�How�can�sustainability�be�supported�within�the�lifetime�of�a�project?
Evidence�from�four�deep�dives,�and�project�monitoring�reports,�shows�that�the�
majority�of�BRACED-X�projects�are�significantly�moving�beyond�delivering�project�
activities,�to�contributing�to�the�potential�sustainability�of�services�and�outcomes�
in�the�long�term.�The�examples�highlighted�in��Section�4.1.4��in�part�corroborate�
other�studies�demonstrating�critical�factors�for�sustainability,76�and�emphasise�
that�laying�the�foundations�for�sustainable�outcomes�beyond�project�timeframes�
requires�creating�an�enabling�institutional�and�policy�environment.�Working�with�
government�and�the�private�sector�in�some�cases�has�been�paramount.�Creating�
demand�through�project�partners�and�communities’�direct�collaboration�and�
participation,�and�achieving�meaningful�results�during�the�implementation�period�
that�clearly�show�that�change�is�worthwhile,�also�increases�the�likelihood�of�
uptake�of�approaches�and�activities�beyond�the�project�lifetime�from�individual�
to�institutional�level.�Sustainability�is�likewise�shown�to�be�a�process�that�builds�
over�time,�requiring�ongoing�commitment�from�the�actors�involved.�
The�insights�on�approaches�used�to�promote�sustainability�reiterate�the�added�
value�of�BRACED-X�that��Section�3.2.2��posits.�That�is,�without�the�BRACED�
74 dcF, Progress, anukulan.
75 dcF, cmesa-e.
76 sustainability is suggested to depend on (sustained) resources, capacity, motivation (incentives) and upwards linkages (rogers, b. et al. (2015) sustaining development: a synthesis of results from a four-country study of sustainability and exit strategies among development food assistance projects. science and Policy, tufts university).
56ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
extension,�projects�would�not�have�had�the�time�or�the�resources�to�secure�
the�sustainability�of�activities.�This�is�because�most�projects�found�the�additional�
time�of�BRACED-X�important�for�reinforcing�project�gains,�which�is�the�key�
added�value�of�the�extension�phase.
What�projects�have�achieved�is�valuable�and�worthy�of�merit.�Yet�still,�evidence�
of�the�potential�for�sustainability�at�the�time�of�project�close�does�not�necessarily�
imply�sustained�benefits�over�time.�Interventions�still�require�support�from�
a�limited�number�of�external�agents�and�inputs,�and�rely�on�more�conventional�
structures�and�implementation�strategies,�rather�than�being�sustainable�on�their�
own�terms.77�As�such,�there�is�a�need�to�reflect�and�challenge�what�is�to�be�
sustained�(Box�10).
Box�10:�Deep�dive�findings�in�focus�–�challenges�in�defining�sustainability�
and�what�should�persist
BRACED-X�projects�tend�to�overly�focus�on�a�narrow�conceptualisation�of�
sustainability�–�that�is�ensuring�the�continuity�of�activities�and�benefits�after�
project�implementation�and�funding�ends,�so�that�the�outcomes�of�action�
remain�‘intact’�and�grow�further�post-intervention.�From�this�perspective,�
it�is�assumed�that�what�projects�are�doing�should�be�sustained�to�begin�
with,�with�sustainability�treated�as�a�positive�outcome.�Yet�understanding�
what�exactly�is�to�be�sustained�in�contexts�of�resilience�to�climate-related�
changes�requires�more�clarity.
A�more�conventional�approach�might�look�at�a�specific�activity�or�outcome�
and�judge�whether�it�is�sustainable�or�not.78�However,�for�resilience,�there�
is�a�need�for�projects�and�donors�to�move�away�from�an�explicit�focus�on�
the�sustainability�of�activities�and�outcomes,�where�practices�today�may�
not�be�resilient�in�the�long�term,�towards�key�social�processes�and�types�
of�thinking,�behaviours�or�trust,�and�approaches�to�implementation�that�
underpin�sustainability�and�the�change�processes�through�which�durable�
changes�are�to�be�realised�over�time.�In�this�way,�adaptive�capacity�and�
sustainability�are�keenly�linked.
Pinpointing�what�it�takes�to�build�resilience�in�ways�that�are�durable,�
and�identifying�what�is�worth�sustaining,�is�not�well�understood�if�project�
approaches�are�not�tested�against�future�uncertainty�and�potential�
77 kuntz and gomes (2012), in mapfumo et al. (2017) (Pathways to transformational change in the face of climate impacts: an analytical framework. Climate and Development 9, 5: 439–451), argue that change processes are to be sustainable through ‘internal’ resources, rather than requiring unending funding and support from ‘external’ agents (p. 441).
78 mapfumo, P. et al. (2017) Pathways to transformational change in the face of climate impacts: an analytical framework. Climate and Development 9, 5: 439–451.
57ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
unexpected�shocks.�The�uncertainty�that�comes�with�climatic�changes�
and�unpredictable�events�or�extremes�questions�the�extent�to�which�
choices�made�today�can�reduce�or�exacerbate�current�or�future�vulnerability�
and�facilitate�or�constrain�future�responses.�As�such,�sustainability�
poses�a�complex�challenge�for�resilience�initiatives�if�projects�are�to�not�
inadvertently�hinder�long-term�development,�and�people’s�resilience,�by�
locking�communities,�or�institutions�into�potentially�negative�(maladaptive)�
pathways.�Hence�the�ultimate�measurement�of�sustainability�must�
be�people�and�institutions’�capacity�to�adapt�to�an�uncertain�future.�
Thus�tracking�adaptive�capacity,�and�bringing�attention�to�the�ability�
to�address�unforeseen�and�multivariate�risks�as�well�as�those�familiar,�
will�truly�test�project�sustainability.
A�starting�point�might�include�the�use�of�strategic�scenarios�and�prioritising�
decisions�that�are�flexible�and�robust�across�different�possible�futures�
when�developing�resilience-building�actions.�More�flexible�and�adaptive�
programming�approaches�may�help�stimulate�and�encourage�this�shift�
in�decision�making�for�planning�and�design.
We�have�also�learnt�from�the�MRR�deep�dives�that,�while�projects�have�taken�
care�to�implement�in�ways�that�engender�ownership�and�longevity�of�activities�
and�outcomes,�barriers�to�sustainability�exist.�These�often�relate�to�continued�
difficulties�in�accessing�remote�and�underserved�communities,�with�implications�
for�the�‘leave�no�one�behind’�commitment�by�2030�under�the�Sustainable�
Development�Goals�(SDGs)�and�the�UN’s�Agenda�2030.�For�MAR,�for�example,�
there�is�concern�that�government�officers�and�microfinance�institutions�may�
not�continue�to�offer�their�support�to�remote�areas,�given�the�time�and�budget�
needed�to�do�so.�Such�barriers�can�take�time�to�address,�with�linkages�with�
external�entities�or�institutions�to�be�carefully�considered,�so�that�the�resources,�
capacity�and�motivation�to�sustain�activities�are�present�in�the�long�term.�This�
often�rests�on�ownership�and�capacity�built�up�during�the�project,�with�resilience�
programmes�to�allocate�extra�resources�to�ensure�remote�and�underserved�
populations�are�reached�effectively.�As�such,�the�examples�from�BRACED-X�
emphasise�the�importance�of�paying�greater�attention�to�the�fact�that�more�
immediate,�shorter-term�successes�or�conventional�approaches�that�do�not�
challenge�existing�(power)�structures�or�socio-economic�inequalities,�that�can�
constrain�access�to�resources�and�the�choices�people�make,�can�come�at�the�
expense�of�supporting�sustainability�over�time.�Similarly,�if�project�approaches�
are�not�sustained,�it�raises�questions�around�whether�projects�can�actually�
claim�resilience�has�been�built.
There�is�a�risk�that�the�definition�of�sustainability�typically�used�by�BRACED-X�
IPs�also�limits�the�extent�to�which�projects�move�beyond�conventional�activities,�
towards�transformative�risk-taking�interventions�that�challenge�existing�(power,�
political�and�social)�structures�and�conditions�and�socio-economic�inequalities�
58ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� transFormationaL imPact
that�generate�or�perpetuate�underlying�causes�of�people’s�vulnerability�to�climate�
risk�to�begin�with.�Working�towards�this�more�radical,�deep-seated�type�of�social�
changeis�needed,�and�is�important�if�sustainability�is�to�be�taken�seriously.�This�
is�because�intentionally�bringing�about�change�in�power�structures�and�reshaping�
behaviours�and�drivers�of�risk�and�vulnerability�is�of�benefit�to�people�irrespective�
of�specific�disturbances�they�face.79�This�form�of�substantial�change�can�support�
addressing�multiple�types�of�climate�and�other�changes�progress�towards�
sustainability�requires.�It�also�enables�resilience�to�be�influenced�beyond�the�
individual�or�household�level�–�the�sphere�in�which�BRACED�has�achieved�most�
impact�–�to�effecting�change�at�scale,�by�engaging�with�institutional�and�political�
factors�that�often�shape�people’s�capacity�for�resilience�via�decisions�driven�by�
the�values�and�priorities�of�removed�or�external�stakeholders.�There�is�a�role�for�
projects�and�NGOs�to�act�as�facilitators�and�brokers�of�such�interactions,�together�
with�other�actors,�helping�local�stakeholders�work�towards�enabling�this�more�
fundamental�kind�of�change.�Resilience�programmes�present�the�opportunity�to�
support�communities�to�‘adapt�forward’�and�work�along�an�aspired�development�
pathway�towards�the�SDGs.�A�prerequisite�for�the�sustainability�of�resilience�
programmes�is�therefore�addressing�the�underlying�causes�of�vulnerability.�This�
includes�the�structural�inequalities�that�create�and�sustain�poverty�and�underpin�
people’s�resilience.
Radical�changes�to�inequalities�and�power�dynamics�however�rarely�show�
in�a�few�years,�and�often�take�longer�than�the�BRACED�timeframe�of�three�
to�four�years.�Changing�structural�drivers�of�risk�is�a�gradual�process�that�
takes�time�and�sustained�commitment,80�further�highlighting�the�importance�
of�tracking�adaptive�capacity�as�a�measure�of�project�sustainability�in�the�
medium�(five�to�10�years)�to�long�term�(10+�years).
79 bahadur, a., Lovell, e., Pichon, F. (2016) effectiveness in building resilience. synthesis report for oxfam’s resilience outcome area. London: odi.
80 Few, r., morchain, d., spear, d., mensah, a., bendapudi, r. (2017) transformation, adaptation and development: relating concepts to practice. Palgrave Communications, 3: 17092.
59ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� wHat does tHe evidence teLL us
This�report�presents�the�summative�findings�from�the�annual�reports�of�BRACED-X�
projects.�BRACED�was�an�ambitious�programme,�which�aimed�to�build�resilience�
locally�in�highly�vulnerable�and�volatile�places,�yet�at�scale,�in�a�three-year�
period.�Much�has�been�learnt�about�resilience�across�a�range�of�contexts�and�
through�different�packages�of�activities�and�social�and�policy�processes�that�
underpin�and�reshape�people’s�ability�to�address�climate-related�changes.�In�
Year�1,�we�gained�insight�into�the�types�of�activities�that�can�enhance�resilience,�
particularly�anticipatory�and�absorptive�capacities.�Year�2�demonstrated�a�number�
of�key�processes�for�resilience-building,�with�evidence�around�the�importance�
of�timing�illustrated�in�Year�3.�Now,�under�BRACED-X,�the�18-month�extension�
phase�has�provided�additional�time�to�learn�more�about�adaptive�capacity�and�
transformative�changes�as�understood�under�BRACED.�These�relate�to�policy,�
equality�and�social�inclusion,�and�sustainability,�and�offer�greater�insights�for�
policy,�design�and�the�funding�of�future�resilience�programmes.
In�this�report,�we�challenged�the�main�assumptions�underpinning�the�BRACED�
ToC,�by�asking�five�questions�that�remained�unanswered�during�the�programme�
extension�yet�relevant�(see��Section�1.3�).�Findings�suggest�that�the�updated�
BRACED-X�ToC�holds,�but�changes�need�to�be�made�to�the�current�design�
to�reflect�the�findings�of�this�report.�The�main�overarching�outcome-level�
assumption�holds�true,�as�evidence�to�date�reveals�that�building�resilience�is�
5.�WHAT�DOES�THE�EVIDENCE�TELL�US�ABOUT�RESILIENCE?image: mikkel ostergaard / Panos
60ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� wHat does tHe evidence teLL us
not�just�about�responding,�coping,�and�adapting�to�shocks,�but�is�also�about�
transforming�the�social,�political�and/or�economic�system.
Although�most�projects�delivered�high-impact�activities�that�generated�quick�
gains�and�helped�improve�the�resilience�of�stakeholders�within�a�short�timeframe,�
outcomes�related�to�adaptive�capacity�remain�limited�to�date.�In�line�with�
last�year’s�findings,�results�reveal�that�anticipatory�and�absorptive�capacities�
are�essential,�but�not�sufficient�for�building�resilience�alone.�Anticipatory�and�
absorptive�capacity�can�be�a�part�of�the�process�of�enabling�adaptive�capacity,�
if�they�both�endure�and�remain�adaptive�themselves.�Therefore,�the�implicit�
assumption�that�more�time�would�lead�to�more�evidence�of�adaptive�outcomes�
is�partially�confirmed,�as�the�extension�period�has�enabled�projects�to�update,�
adapt�and�refine�their�plans�based�on�learning�from�the�initial�stage�of�BRACED.�
Yet�BRACED-X�also�demonstrates�that�timing�and�flexibility,�as�much�as�duration,�
is�important,�if�not�more�so�than�length�of�implementation�time�alone.�Put�
differently,�enhancing�adaptive�capacity�in�the�longer�term�is�a�question�not�
(only)�of�time,�but�of�project�design.
Similarly,�although�projects�effectively�facilitated�policy�processes,�and�regularly�
brought�key�stakeholders�together,�projects�so�far�have�not,�overall,�seen�
substantial�change�in�policy�content.�Transformational�outcomes�require�two�
key�processes:�scaling�and�embedding�approaches�into�government�systems�
and�policies�(top-down);�and�including�the�most�vulnerable�and�marginalised�
to�achieve�changes�that�are�structural,�catalytic,�scalable�and�sustainable�
(bottom-up).�BRACED�projects�have�contributed�to�resilience�capacities�and,�
to�a�lesser�extent,�to�transformational�changes.�In�line�with�last�year’s�findings,�
results�reveal�that�policy�change�is�essential,�but�not�sufficient�if�decisions�are�
not�inclusive�and�if�investments�do�not�address�social�inequality,�where�climate�
change�and�disasters�can�exacerbate�existing�disparity.�While�BRACED-X�projects�
ensured�vulnerable�groups,�particularly�women,�benefitted�from�project�activities,�
they�were�not�able�to�change�the�underlying�context�of�social�inclusion�and�
entrenched�discriminatory�social�norms.
What�projects�have�achieved�is�valuable�and�worthy�of�merit,�but�the�extent�
to�which�the�capacities�built�are�sufficient�for�long-term�resilient�change�remains�
unknown.�In�spite�of�progress�during�the�BRACED�extension,�the�delay�in�the�
design�and�commissioning�of�national�policy�work�limited�the�transformational�
impact�of�the�overall�programme.�Considering�progress�to�date,�the�underlying�
assumption�that�both�bottom-up�and�top-down�approaches�are�required�to�
influence�policy�change�remains�untested.
The�authors�acknowledge�that�the�lack�of�(internal)�exploration�of�the�
operational�assumptions�underpinning�the�BRACED�model,�in�particular�the�
working�relationships�within�and�across�components,�is�a�significant�weakness.�
The�opportunity�to�learn�from�BRACED’s�management�successes,�‘productive�
failures’�and�innovations�to�understand�what�is�actually�involved�in�the�
funding�and�management�of�global�resilience�programmes�was�missed.�In�
addition,�having�a�programme-level�M&E�framework�in�place�was�the�foundation�
for�the�measurement,�communication�and�learning�the�line�of�action�in�the�
ToC.�Several�tensions�and�trade-offs�within�the�M&E�process�were�to�be�
61ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� wHat does tHe evidence teLL us
expected,�and�it�is�critical�to�be�aware�of�the�trade-offs�between�programme�–�
and�project-level�M&E.81
Drawing�from�the�findings�of�this�report,�as�well�from�our�learning�through�
monitoring�BRACED�over�the�four-year�period,�we�present�a�set�of�five�key�
messages�that�build�on�the�BRACED�final�report.�In�line�with�the�key�messages�
shared�last�year,�these�reflect�our�interpretation�of�what�this�learning�means�
for�other�resilience-building�efforts.�They�should�not�be�seen�as�a�stand-alone�
set�of�messages,�but�rather�a�continuation�of�our�understanding�about�
what�it�really�takes�to�build�the�resilience�of�the�most�vulnerable�to�climate�
and�disaster�extremes.�We�strongly�encourage�the�reader�to�also�look�at�
the��summary�of�recommendations��from�previous�reports.
Our�aim�is�that�these�five�key�messages,�alongside�findings�from�previous�
years,�provide�the�basis�for�a�deeper�evidence-based�discussion�about�
resilience-building�practice,�as�well�as�considerations�for�designing�and�
commissioning�resilience�programmes.
Key�Message�1:�Sustainability,�in�resilience�terms,�is�about�the�ability�
to�adapt�as�things�change
The�uncertainty�that�comes�with�climatic�variability,�climate�changes�and�
extremes,�challenges�the�extent�to�which�choices�made�today�can�reduce�or�
exacerbate�current�or�future�vulnerability,�and�facilitate�or�constrain�future�
responses.�Hence�the�ultimate�measurement�of�sustainability�must�be�people�
and�institutions’�capacity�to�adapt�to�an�uncertain�future.�This�means�dealing�not�
only�with�climate�risks�that�are�known�and�already�identified,�but�also�with�those�
unforeseen�that�are�harder�to�prepare�for.�From�a�resilience�perspective�therefore,�
sustainability�is�not�just�about�maintaining�activities,�but�is�also�about�the�ability�
to�respond�flexibly�to�different�disturbances.�To�this�end,�there�is�a�need�to�think�
beyond�activities�that�support�adaptive�capacity,�to�the�factors�and�processes�
that�underpin�it�and�through�which�durable�change�can�be�realised�over�time�
(see��Section�4.2.3�).
A�narrow�focus�on�ensuring�the�continuity�of�activities�and�benefits�after�project�
implementation�and�funding�ends,�so�that�the�outcomes�of�activities�remain�
‘intact’�or�are�enhanced�post-intervention,�is�insufficient.�It�fails�to�acknowledge�
the�dynamism�of�resilience�and�that�it�is�change�processes�and�factors�such�
as�trust�or�types�of�thinking�and�behaviour,�that�enable�people�to�positively�
adapt,�that�are�to�be�sustained.�Needless�to�say,�projects�must�ensure�that�the�
investments�and�resources�put�in�place�to�support,�for�example,�climate�services�
are�financially�sustainable�and�do�not�rely�on�external�interventions�and�funds�
after�project�completion.�This,�for�the�most�part,�with�some�exceptions,82�has�
not�been�achieved�in�BRACED,�and�the�lack�of�sustainability�of�climate�services�
may�undermine�long-term�resilience�outcomes�(see��Section�4.1.4�).
81 For an in-depth reflection about lessons learnt on m&e efforts see villanueva, P., sword-daniels, v., Leavy, J., wilson, d. (2018) tracking and measuring resilience in large programmes: lessons from braced. resilience intel 18 .
82 cmesa-e and dcF.
62ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� wHat does tHe evidence teLL us
More�attention�not�on�what�projects�are�doing,�but�on�what�they�are�going�
to�achieve�in�the�short-term�to�enable�longer-term�changes�for�ultimate�
beneficiaries�is�required.�Further,�there�is�also�a�risk�that�such�a�definition�
of�sustainability�limits�the�extent�to�which�projects�move�beyond�conventional�
activities�towards�transformative,�risk-taking�interventions�that�challenge�
underlying�structural�and�socio-economic�inequalities.
BRACED-X�has�demonstrated�that�adaptive�capacity�can�take�longer�to�promote�
than�anticipatory�and�absorptive�capacities.�But�it�has�also�shown�that�with�
sufficient�time,�anticipatory�and�absorptive�capacity�can�provide�a�vehicle�
through�which�adaptive�capacity�can�be�built,�and�the�processes�through�which�
people�can�begin�to�sustain�their�resilience.�Addressing�more�immediate�needs�
in�ways�that�provide�a�foundation�for�adaptation�is�of�essence.�Yet�it�is�tracking�
adaptive�capacity�that�will�truly�test�project�sustainability.
Implications�for�policy�and�practice
•� Sustainability�requires�a�deliberate,�strategic�process�right�from�design�
stage,�with�a�clear�definition�from�the�outset.�Resilience�projects�must�be�
designed�with�both�short�–�and�long-term�objectives�and�vision,�regardless�
of�the�duration�of�the�project.�Donors�could�consider�building�‘sustainability�
funds’,�so�projects�that�implement�interventions�with�impact�(particularly�
for�the�most�vulnerable�and�marginalised�and�to�leave�no�one�behind)�are�
not�transitioned�to�other�entities�in�the�immediate�term,�which�may�leave�
resilience�gains�exposed,�but�can�be�continued�while�pursuing�more�robust�
transition.�Plans�should�include�coherent�strategies�and�partnerships�that�
can�support�this�approach,�and�where�appropriate,�link�results�to�subnational�
policies�and�national�plans.�Sustainability�also�brings�attention�to�timescales,�
as�measuring�processes�is�likely�to�take�longer�than�conventional�programme�
timeframes.�Given�that�resilience�programmes�like�BRACED�still�remain�short�
term�(three�to�five�years),�phased�approaches�to�implementation�become�
even�more�important�(see�Key�Message�5).�This�will�support�projects�and�
programmes�to�move�away�from�achieving�and�measuring�activities�and�
outcomes�over�a�short�period,�towards�measuring�the�change�processes�
that�lay�the�foundations�for�sustainability�over�time.
Key�Message�2:�Transformational�approaches�are�not�optional;��
they�are�fundamental�to�strengthening�resilience
BRACED�expectations�included�working�at�scale�and�reaching�large�
numbers�of�people,�through�large�and�diverse�consortia,�while�also�addressing�
the�vulnerabilities�of�the�most�marginalised�and�leaving�no-one�behind.�
Findings�from�BRACED�demonstrate�that�these�are�not�wholly�incompatible�
goals,�but�they�certainly�merit�further�thought�and�clarity.�Overall,�the�findings�
from�the�extension�phase�demonstrate�that�resilience�programming�needs�to�be�
better�informed�by�robust�analysis�of�who�is�vulnerable�and�why,�and�design�and�
implement�transformational�approaches�that�tackle�inequality�directly�if�people’s�
resilience�is�to�be�improved�(see��Section�4.2.1�).�Results�stress�the�importance�of�
making�an�analytical�distinction�between�projects�that�display�‘social�inclusion’,�
often�demonstrated�through�quotas�in�BRACED-X,�and�results�disaggregated�
63ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� wHat does tHe evidence teLL us
by�marginalised�group,�to�include�equality�as�a�specific�objective.�This�means�
working�directly�with�the�most�vulnerable�as�a�key�goal�for�resilience,�where�
transforming�inequality�is�integral�to�project�logic�and�design.�Building�equality�
and�inclusion�means�not�only�sharing�the�benefits�of�projects,�but�to�also�shift�
entrenched�power�relations�and�control�over�resources.�Tackling�issues�related�
to�social�exclusion�requires�strategic�approaches�to�shift�power�if�fundamental�
changes�are�really�to�occur.�Ultimately,�resilience�programmes�should�lead�to�
people�having�a�greater�voice�and�agency�over�the�decisions�that�impact�their�
ability�to�address�climate-related�change.
Having�gender�or�vulnerability�as�an�‘add-on’�criterion�for�resilience�programming�
is�counterproductive�as�it�can�incentivise�a�culture�of�‘high-number,�measurable�
impact�approaches’�and�inadvertently�steers�project�designs�towards�‘quick-win’�
activities�and�blanket�assessments�of�vulnerability.�While�programmes�may�tick�all�
of�the�boxes,�they�may�still�fall�short�of�delivering�adaptive�capacity�outcomes�in�
the�long�term�if�focus�remains�on�the�‘activities’�rather�than�also�on�the�linkages,�
processes�and�shifts�needed�to�facilitate�and�support�transformational�change.
Implications�for�policy�and�practice
•� A�transformative�agenda�must�start�‘within’�donor�agencies�and�
organisations�and�requires�programmes�to�be�much�more�precise�on�the�
role�of�gender,�marginalisation�and�inequality�in�achieving�(or�preventing)�
resilient�communities.�Where�climate�change�and�disasters�can�exacerbate�
existing�inequality,�gender�and�power�analyses�are�required�to�identify�
and�develop�strategies�to�engage�socially�marginalised�groups,�which�
should�include�consideration�of�disability,�ethnicity�and�other�types�of�
diversity.�Project�design�needs�to�include�a�combination�of�activities�and�
strategies�to�tackle�the�root�causes�of�social�exclusion�and�inequality�
from�the�start.�Designs�need�to�reflect�realistic�timeframes�about�what�
can�be�achieved�and�at�what�scale�within�existing�levels�of�funding�and�
resources.�Specific�budgets�for�social�equality�and�inclusion�should�be�
allocated�to�support�specific�change�pathways�towards�these�objectives,�
with�resilience�programmes�to�allocate�extra�resources�to�ensure�remote�
and�underserved�populations�are�effectively�reached.
Key�Message�3:�Beyond�policy�content,�it�is�the�timing�and�sequencing�
of�policy�engagement�work�at�multiple�scales�that�is�critical
Policy�change�is�often�cited�as�an�example�of�systemic,�transformative�change.�
Shifting�institutions,�their�representatives�and�legislation�takes�time,�but�
enshrining�change�in�law�is�often�seen�as�a�way�to�bring�about�durable�change.�
For�this�reason,�supporting�changes�in�policies,�political�discourse�and�political�
actors’�behaviours�that�were�favourable�towards�enabling�the�resilience�of�
vulnerable�populations,�was�targeted�by�BRACED�and�made�explicit�in�the�
BRACED-X�ToC.�However,�evidence�suggests�policy�outcomes�have,�overall,�been�
elusive,�notwithstanding�some�successes�in�shorter-term�changes�in�knowledge�–�
and�awareness-building,�and�access�to�and�engagement�with�key�stakeholders,�
which�are�requisite�steps�on�a�policy�change�pathway�(see��Section�4.1.3�).
64ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� wHat does tHe evidence teLL us
A�primary�focus�on�knowledge�building�and�awareness�raising�will�not�however�
lead�to�substantial�policy�outcomes�alone.�Knowledge�is�foundational�for�building�
the�shared�understanding�and�buy-in�required�for�policy�change�and�is�a�vital�
resource�to�inform�policy�outcomes�if�it�is�proactively�used�for�this�purpose.�
Yet�enacting�policy�change�requires�long-term�engagement�or�direct�facilitation�
of�policy�development�in�the�short�term,�with�relevant,�influential�actors�to�
be�involved�in�supporting�the�process�–�an�area�of�enquiry�warranting�further�
exploration�beyond�BRACED.�Policy�change�must�also�be�supported�by�a�shift�
in�attitudes�of�policy�makers�towards�the�needs�and�capacities�of�marginalised�
people�and�the�inequitable�structures�that�underpin�their�vulnerability.�
Policy�outcomes�can�be�achieved�in�challenging�and�changing�political�contexts,�
as�long�as�project�goals�align�with�emerging�policy�windows.�However,�it�is�
difficult�to�say�if�policy�outcomes�can�be�sustained�through�ongoing�political�
change.�Measuring�defined�progress�markers�alone�does�not�indicate�whether�
policy�change�has�been�achieved.�IPs�have�built�relationships�with�a�variety�of�
stakeholders�and�obtained�endorsement�and�verbal�commitments�around�the�
policy�changes�they�want�to�bring�about,�but�these�have�not�necessarily�resulted�
in�improved�policies,�which�may�benefit�those�at�risk�from�climate�shocks�and�
stresses.�Policies�need�to�be�acted�upon�in�order�to�support�the�populations�
BRACED�engaged�with,�and�the�long-term�effect�of�policy�depends�on�the�
will,�capacity�and�fiscal�commitments�of�key�institutions�to�implement�them.
Implications�for�policy�and�practice
•� Working�at�multiple�scales,�resilience�programmes�should�fund�projects�
that�develop�a�phased�strategy�for�building�resilience�that�includes�both�
bottom-up�community-level�investments�and�top-down�institutional�change.�
Bottom-up�investments�are�key�for�building�credibility�and�legitimacy,�and�
generating�policy-relevant�evidence,�which�can�then�be�leveraged�to�facilitate�
policy�changes.�This�needs�to�be�considered�and�built�in�at�design�stage�with�
work�at�different�scales,�not�conducted�in�silos,�but�mutually�reinforcing.�For�
projects�and�programmes�with�policy�objectives,�nested�theories�of�change�
that�are�linked�via�policy�change�pathways�between�levels�may�be�a�useful�
way�to�ensure�there�is�a�link�between�them.�Supporting�policy�change�is�
a�long-term�process,�with�results�not�certain�and�often�beyond�the�control�
of�implementing�entities.�Policy�outcomes�can�be�subject�to�the�vagaries�of�
political�change,�particularly�in�the�contexts�in�which�BRACED�has�operated.�
To�account�for�this,�a�higher�tolerance�for�risk�of�failure�is�required�than�is�
perhaps�the�norm�for�official�development�assistance�funders,�bound�by�
understandable�accountability�rules.�If�M&E�frameworks�are�also�to�move�
beyond�standard�progress�markers�for�policy�change,�such�as�networks�built�
at�individual�level,�to�measure�the�resilience�of�institutions�and�their�capacity�
to�ultimately�implement�policy,�this�will�require�more�top�down�investment.
65ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� wHat does tHe evidence teLL us
Key�Message�4:�Higher�degrees�of�flexibility�are�needed�both�in�the�design�
and�management�of�resilience�programmes
Time�and�timing�has�been�a�recurring�theme�throughout�BRACED�across�
a�number�of�issues�relating�to�programming�approaches,�resilience-building�
processes,�project�and�consortium�management�and�demonstration�of�results.�
Evidence�from�BRACED�points�to�the�fact�that�building�resilience�in�the�long�
term�is�not�(only)�a�question�of�time,�but�of�the�amount�of�flexibility�in�project�
design�(see��Section�3.2.3�).�For�example,�working�in�partnership�has�provided�
BRACED�projects�with�a�more�diverse�range�of�capacities,�knowledge�and�
experience,�which�would�not�have�been�as�effective�from�a�single�entity,�
institution�or�organisation�working�alone.�Yet�it�has�also�challenged�the�speed�
and�scope�of�projects,�and�of�the�programme�at�large,�to�be�flexible�and�to�
learn�and�adapt.�Despite�valuable�accomplishments,�BRACED�provides,�at�best,�
ad hoc examples�of�flexibility�and�adaptation.�Projects�have�mostly�focused�on�
reactive,�tactical�changes,�and�course�correction�in�order�to�meet�deliverables�
and�deadlines,�rather�than�adapting�and�experimenting�by�strategic�design.�
Making�tactical�tweaks�to�improve�performance�however�only�gets�projects�
so�far.�Evidence�from�BRACED-X�reveals�the�importance�of�ensuring�learning�
and�evidence-based�adaptive�decision�making.�But�it�also�challenges�the�extent�
to�which�this�can�be�done�within�large�consortia�programmes,�and�within�
the�confines�of�conventional�programme�designs�and�contracts�that�limit�the�
scope�for�projects�to�employ�adaptive�management.�In�the�future,�programmes�
and�their�donors�need�to�embrace�the�technical�elements�of�working�in�complex�
environments�and�issues�around�risk,�failure�and�trust,�inherent�in�adaptive�
and�resilient�processes.
A�potential�way�forward�is�to�consider�hybrid�management�models�that�ensure�
accountability�and�enhance�flexibility�in�project�design�and�decision�making.�
While�it�is�critical�to�remain�flexible,�ever-evolving�strategies�can�become�moving�
targets,�making�it�difficult�to�know�when�a�programme�has�achieved�success.�
Frameworks�and�indicators�are�necessary�to�maintain�a�minimum�degree�of�
accountability�to�donors�and�communities�while�adapting�to�the�situation�and�
approach�used.�Programmes�must�consider�the�role�and�purpose�of�the�logframe�
and�how�it�is�used;�where�progress,�not�targets,�can�drive�programme�adaptation,�
and�experimentation,�not�only�quantitative�results,�is�recognised.�For�example,�
concept�notes�and�project�or�programme�proposals�should�be�based�on�broad�
outcomes,�providing�implementers�the�flexibility�to�define�their�own�approaches,�
work�plans,�reporting�and�indicators,�and�adapting�them�towards�shared�
goals.�Projects�could�also�work�towards�fixed,�‘bedrock’�indicators�at�higher�
outcome�levels,�with�lower-order�outcomes�and�outputs�remaining�flexible�
and�changeable.�A�key�measure�of�project�effectiveness�should�likewise�be�the�
extent�projects�incorporate�learning.�In�addition,�to�truly�test�the�effectiveness�
of�adaptive�project�management�and�implementation,�ToCs�need�to�clarify�
how�much�adaptation�and�change�projects�and�programmes�should�demonstrate.
Needless�to�say,�it�takes�more�time�–�and�probably�costs�more�–�to�manage�an�
adaptive�programme�than�a�conventional�programme.�It�means�allowing�freedom�
to�experiment�and�freedom�to�fail,�so�halting�initiatives�that�seem�unlikely�to�
66ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� wHat does tHe evidence teLL us
succeed�and�scaling�up�others�where�strategic�impact�is�more�likely.�Failure�is�
not�a�‘waste�of�money’�–�indeed,�it�could�represent�better�value�for�money�versus�
continuing�to�fund�a�failing�project�–�as�long�as�programmes�learn�and�adapt�
from�what�does�not�work�and�make�decisions�that�are�based�on�this�evidence.
Implications�for�policy�and�practice
•� Programmes�need�to�balance�rigour�and�accountability�with�agility�and�
responsiveness�to�complexity.�This�could�mean,�for�example,�that�donor�
organisations�promote�flexible�reporting�templates�and�timelines,�freedom�
to�reallocate�funding�and�update�budgets�within�a�certain�threshold,�and�
the�ability�to�make�decisions�swiftly�based�on�action,�experimentation�
and�rapid�evaluation.�Donors�must�also�ensure�investments�in�creating�
and�enabling�ongoing�space�for�structured�reflection�and�learning.�This�is�
to�help�partners�stand�back�from�projects�so�they�can�consider�the�bigger�
picture,�think�creatively,�and�use�lessons�learnt�to�feedback�into�and�
inform�planning�and�strategic�direction.��
Key�Message�5:�Phased�approaches�that�layer�and�link�processes�and�
interventions�across�timeframes�and�scales�should�guide�the�way�forward
In�line�with�our�key�messages�in�Years�2�and�3,�the�findings�of�this�report�
make�us�reiterate�the�fact�that�investing�in�sustainable�and�transformational�
resilience�outcomes�is�a�long-term�process,�and�therefore�future�resilience�
programmes�should�consider�alternative�approaches�to�project�design�and�
delivery�that�expand�beyond�three-�to�five-year�funding�cycles.�Discussion�
about�timeframes�should�not�be�centred�on�what�can�be�achieved�in�terms�
of�resilience�as�a�final�outcome;�more�enabling�environments�may�see�more�
‘results’.�Instead,�the�focus�should�be�on�the�extent�to�which�projects�can�
support�stakeholders�within�their�context�to�move�along�development�
pathways,�while�at�the�same�time�building�capacities�to�enable�coping,�
adaptation�and�transformation�in�the�face�of�climate�and�disaster�risk.
To�this�end,�phased�delivery�approaches�would�help�match�design�to�context�
with�longer�lead-in�times�to�allow�for�a�deeper�analysis�of�the�context(s)�in�
which�the�project�is�working;�an�extended�inception�phase�to�build�relationships�
and�trial�new�ways�of�working;�and�several�phases�of�implementation�without�
assuming�that�full�results�can�be�delivered�in�one�project�period�or�at�the�
same�time.�Such�approaches�would�require�iterative�learning�to�be�built�into�
the�design�of�subsequent�phases.�For�example,�by�addressing�immediate�
needs�and�helping�people�improve�their�absorptive�and�anticipatory�capacity�
first,�while�laying�the�groundwork�for�adaptive�capacity�and�transformational�
change,�rather�than�pre-planning�it�all.�Also,�by�having�a�longer-term�
commitment�to�fund�selected�projects�to�support�a�deeper�and�more�
sustainable�resilience-building�process�(Key�Message�1).
Working�in�this�way,�where�timing�is�better�considered,�than�just�duration�of�
programmes�alone,�would�prevent�current�deficiencies�that�lead�to�projects�trying�
to�do�too�much�at�once,�and�lacking�clear�logic�between�activities�undertaken�
and�larger�impact�claims.�It�would�help�work�through�any�resistance�to�change�
67ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� wHat does tHe evidence teLL us
projects�may�experience�and�open�up�opportunities�gained�through�an�evolving�
understanding�of�context�and�stakeholders�throughout�implementation.�Donor�
commitment�to�phased�approaches,�in�both�implementation�and�funding,�
would�also�better�incentivise�the�ways�of�working�needed�for�resilience,�
especially�through�transformational�approaches�(Key�Message�4).�This�includes�
enabling�trust�and�social�relations�that�develop�over�time;�changing�attitudes�
towards�the�contribution�of�those�traditionally�marginalised�in�decision�
making;�and�embedding�adaptive�management�and�feedback�mechanisms�
that�improve�people’s�ability�to�make�decisions�and�take�action�that�positively�
enhances�their�resilience.�BRACED-X�demonstrated,�short�term,�the�value�
that�can�be�added�to�project�achievements�by�building�on�previous�phases�
of�implementation.�Yet�more�support�is�still�needed�for�BRACED�communities�
to�be�resilient�to�the�changing�risks�and�threats�they�face.
Taking�a�phased�approach�to�programming�can�help�move�towards�
changing�structures�of�inequality�that�undermine�resilience,�also�which�projects�
struggle�to�influence�during�standard�implementing�timelines.�It�can�enable�
projects�to�learn�from�experience�and�failure�over�time,�and�better�understand�
what�works�and�what�is�important�to�sustain�to�begin�with.�Projects�can�
likewise�better�align�with�cycles�relating�to�agriculture,�government�planning�
or�national�and�local�policy�processes,�that�the�findings�of�this�report�
demonstrate�is�needed�(see��Section�3.2.3�).�‘Opportunity�costs’�associated�
with�a�phased�approach�would�in�part�be�offset�by�the�future,�and�further�
opportunities�it�brings�for�resilience-building.
Implications�for�policy�and�practice
•� Donors�need�to�reconsider�funding�cycles�and�implementation�phases,�
requiring�potential�changes�in�donor�mindsets,�as�a�reassessment�of�existing�
practice�is�required.�Practitioners�and�donors�should�adjust�to�a�rolling�
planning�mechanism,�over�longer�timeframes�and�move�away�from�shorter�
term�project�cycles.�Reviews�at�the�end�of�each�phase�would�inform�the�
next,�together�with�active�learning�cycles,�with�identification�of�measurable�
actions�to�provide�focus�and�direction.�Rolling�plans�are�to�be�reflected�in�
budgetary�procedures,�with�different�accounting�systems�than�those�used�in�
more�conventional�programmes�to�be�potentially�explored.�Project�managers�
should�take�the�time�to�tailor�their�practices�to�best�fit�the�needs�of�a�phased�
approach,�with�M&E�approaches�to�be�designed�around�the�phased�project�
cycle,�with�ability�to�grow�and�evolve�over�time�as�projects�develop.
68ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� annex 1
Annex�1:�Components�of�the�BRACED-X�programmeThe�BRACED-X�programme�comprises�four�components:
Components�A�and�B�are�field-based�resilience-building�projects�in�the�Sahel�
and�East�Africa/Asia,�respectively.�These�nine�projects�are�being�run�concurrently,�
usually�in�one�or�two�of�the�BRACED�countries.83�Each�BRACED�project�is�
unique�in�its�design,�target�stakeholders,�activities�and�operating�context,�and�
is�delivered�by�a�BRACED�IP.�IPs�are�typically�multi-organisation�consortia�that�
have�come�together�to�design�and�deliver�a�resilience-building�project�under�
BRACED.��Annex�2��provides�a�list�of�the�IPs�and�their�projects.�A�Fund�Manager�
(FM)�manages�the�performance�of�the�nine�projects.
Component�C�aims�to�develop�a�better�understanding�of�what�works�in�building�
resilience�to�climate�extremes�and�disasters.�To�this�end,�DFID�is�also�supporting�
a�Knowledge�Manager�(KM).�The�BRACED�KM�is�a�consortium�of�M&E,�research,�
learning,�communications�and�regional�organisations.�Working�alongside�the�nine�
project�IPs,�the�KM�is�building�a�knowledge�and�evidence�base�of�what�works�
to�strengthen�resilience.�The�KM�networks�internally�and�externally�to�get�that�
knowledge�and�evidence�into�use�within�and�beyond�BRACED�countries.
Component�D�aims�to�build�the�capability�and�capacity�of�developing�countries�
and�regional�organisations�to�prepare�and�plan�for�the�expected�increases�in�the�
frequency�and�severity�of�climate�extremes�and�disasters.
83 the braced countries of operation are burkina Faso, chad, mali, mauritania, niger, senegal, sudan (component a) and ethiopia, kenya, south sudan, uganda, myanmar, nepal (component b).
69ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� annex 2
Annex�2:�The�BRACED-X�projectsEach�BRACED-X�project�used�different�intervention�strategies�and�was�
implemented�in�different�climatic�and�operating�contexts.�The�table�below�
provides�a�brief�synopsis�of�the�location�and�focus�of�each�of�the�nine�projects�
considered�in�this�report,�and�the�name/abbreviation�by�which�they�are�
referred�to�throughout�the�report.
project name project abbreviation project location project focus
anukulan anukulan nepal driving small farmer investment in climate-smart technologies
climate and meteorological service advancement in ethiopia
cmesa-e ethiopia improving access to reliable climate information and increasing local communities’ capacity to respond to climate threats through developing a national Framework for climate services
decentralising climate Funds
dcF mali, senegal strengthening climate adaptation planning and access to finance by local governments to improve communities’ resilience to climate change in mali and senegal
Livestock mobility Livestock mobility burkina Faso, mali, mauritania, niger, senegal
strengthening the resilience of pastoralists and agro-pastoralists, through trans-border livestock mobility
market approaches to resilience
mar ethiopia Financial models and economic opportunities adaptable to climate extremes
Progress Progress kenya building resilient governance, markets and social systems
scaling up resilience to climate extremes for over 1 million People
sur1m niger, mali intelligent agriculture, saving circles and radio messaging for resilience in the niger river basin
building resilience by changing Farming, Forestry and early warning Practices
bres burkina Faso changing farming practices to prepare for heavy rain and high temperatures
waati yelema Labenw wyL mali strengthening communities’ initiatives for resilience to climate extremes
70ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� annex 3
Annex�3:�BRACED-X�Theory�of�Change
• Build awareness and capacity of government stakeholders
• Facilitate dialogue exchange through national platforms
• Generate new evidence and knowledge products tailored to planning and policy processes
mid term changes• Evidence informed attitudes and discourses
• Improved dialogue, and coordination contributes to a more enabling policy environment
• Improved climate resilience policy and planning
Amplification beyond BRACED
countriesAssumptions
impactThe well being of
poor and vulnerable people improves
despite exposure toclimate extremes
and disasters
Assumptions
pathway 3
• Getting evidence into use
• Better understanding of what
works – evidence usedoutcomes
Transformational changeHouseholds improve their anticipatory, absorptive
and adaptive capacity to climate extremes
and disasters
AssumptionsAssumptions
Assumptions
path
way
2
pathway 1
• Apply and adopt new skills; • Access and use medium-term and longer-term climate information;
• Uptake and replicate project activities
• Actively participate in the planning, implementation and decision-making process of project activities
mid term changes
• Build knowledge and capacity of communities to improve access and use of a wide range of skills, assets and services
• Work in partnership with climate centres to promote access and use of climate and weather information
• Work in partnership with the research institutions and private sector to improve access and quality of basic services
• Build the capacity of local governments to improve local planning
Areas of intervention: disaster risk management and early warnings; financial schemes and markets; agricultural practices and innovative technologies; health and nutrition; governance and natural resource management; gender and social inclusion
71ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� annex 4
Annex�4:�BRACED�M&E�‘infrastructure’
BRACED Fund
Manager
Fund Manager Results Team
Quarterly & Monthly
Reporting
Direct engagement
with IPs
Annual Reporting Synthesis
Evaluation
Quarterly Performance
Reporting
Monitoring visit reports
BRACED Knowledge Manager
Project to programme evidence &
learning
Monitoring & Results Reporting
(MRR)
Consistent project results
reporting (Outcome level)
Evaluative Monitoring
(context analysis)
Areas of Change (Outcome Mapping)
3As – Resilience outcomes
Contribution Analysis
(Country Case Studies)
Realist Evaluation
Case based analysis
Quasi-Experimental
Impact Evaluation
Contribution Analysis
EA1: BRACED Programme
ToC
EA2: BRACED interventions
EA5: PHASE
EA3: BRACED Projects
EA4: Adaptive Social Protection
(System level)
Activity Method
• How is BRACED performing?
• How are BRACED projects building resilience?
• How effectively are activities being delivered?
• What results has BRACED delivered?
• Does the BRACED model work? For whom?
• What does this mean for future resilience programming?
• What does this mean for resilience strengthening more broadly?
• What have we learned about monitoring and measurement of resilience programming?
EA: Evaluation ActivityToC: Theory of Change
72ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� annex 5
Annex�5:�Analysis�from�project�to�programme�levelBased�on�experience�in�Year�3,�we�followed�the�same�approach�to�analysis�
and�synthesis�in�BRACED-X.�The�project-�to�programme-level�synthesis�
was�undertaken�in�five�steps:
Synthesis�methodology
Project-level analysis and
synthesis
Step 1: Systematic review
and screening against project-level
grid
Step 2: Characterising project-level
(organising data – key word search)
Step 3: Project-level
synthesis against analytical
framework
Step 5: Thematic analysis
Step 4: Comparative analysis and identification
of themes
Project-to-programme
Programme-level
synthesis
Framework synthesis
Thematic synthesis
Consultation with ongoing research
streams to deepen analysis
of findings
Project-level�analysis�and�synthesis�(Steps�1–3,�June�2019)
•� First,�based�on�discussions�of�the�process�and�necessary�clarifications�needed�
from�Year�3,�we�modified�the�project-screening�grid�(see��Annex�6�),�which�
comprises�of�16�questions�that�allow�a�close�examination�of�components�in�
the�BRACED�M&E�framework.�These�questions�form�the�a priori categories�
for�structural�coding.84
•� We�then�systematically�coded�the�set�of�project�annual�reports�using�the�
project-screening�grid.�During�this�process,�we�identified�some�recurring�
key�words�for�each�question,�which�were�specific�terms�used�by�projects.�
We�used�these�terms�to�systematically�search�IP�reports,�to�ensure�
we�captured�the�main�findings.�The�team�also�coded�any�emergent�or�
unexpected�findings�to�ensure�all�dimensions�of�the�data�were�captured.
84 saldaña, J. (2009) the coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: sage. gibson, w.J. and brown, a. (2009) working with qualitative data. London: sage.
73ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� annex 5
•� At�this�stage�we�summarised�the�findings�against�each�of�the�16�questions�
in�an�Excel�spreadsheet,�and�used�this�tool�to�organise�the�data�into�
project-specific�themes.�This�approach�resulted�in�a�clear�understanding�
about�each�project’s�efforts�and�challenges�to�date.
•� We�then�synthesised�each�annual�report�at�the�project�level�against�the�
analytical�framework�(see�Table�1).�This�produced�a�new�interpretation�that�
went�beyond�the�results�reported�by�IPs�and�provided�coherence�across�
projects.�This�process�was�guided�by�expert�knowledge�and�interpretation�of�
the�MRR�team�based�on�our�intimate�knowledge�of�the�programme.
Project�–�to�programme-level�synthesis�and�analysis�(Steps�4–5,�July�2019)
•� Once�project-level�data�was�synthesised�against�a�common�framework,�
we�proceeded�with�a�programme-level�thematic�synthesis.�We�looked�
across�the�project-level�syntheses�to�identify�and�analyse�patterns�within�
the�data�relating�to�the�core�questions�of�this�report.�This�step�allowed�us�
to�look�across�the�nine�projects,�to�see�what�extent�change�had�occurred�
and�the�impact�of�context�on�achieving�change�at�outcome�level�across�
the�programme.�A�rule�of�thumb�was�used,�where�a�minimum�of�three�
occurrences�of�an�idea�represents�a�pattern�within�the�data�(a�theme).85
To�triangulate�and�deepen�analysis�and�understanding�of�the�findings,�
we�conducted�consultations�with�the�KM�research�teams.�This�included�
climate�information�and�services,�access�to�markets�and�gender�equality�
and�social�inclusion.
Finally,�we�validated�findings�with�IPs,�triangulated�findings�with�the�FM,�
and�explored�the�findings�and�conclusions�with�DFID.
85 berg, b.L. (2009) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. 7th edition. boston, ma: allyn & bacon.
74ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� annex 6
Annex�6:�Project�screening�grid
braced m&e framework
how are braced components a&b building resilience to climate extremes?
Contextual�factors�affecting�change
contextualising resilience
what are the main constrainers of the project related to (internal�or�external to the project)?�How�are these contextual factors constraining change from the project?
what are the main enablers of the project related (internal�or�external to the project)?�How�are these contextual factors enabling change from the project?
Have the contextual factors contributed to any unexpected�outputs or�outcomes?
what are the key lessons�learnt in relation to change processes (how to build resilience or design projects to build resilience)?
what is the level of evidence?
Shocks�and�stresses
shocks and stresses
what shocks�and�stresses have occurred during year 4?
what impact have shocks and stresses had on project�progress?
Understanding�resilience�outcomes
categorising outcome-level changes
who are the direct/indirect stakeholders and how have they benefitted?
what are the main capacities being built?
What�works�best to build each capacity?
do any project activities/initiatives help enhance more�than�one�capacity at a time?
are there any trade-offs in initiatives to enhance adaptive, anticipatory and absorptive capacity, where enhancing one capacity may result in the erosion of another?
what evidence is there that building adaptive, anticipatory and absorptive capacities has reduced�the�impact�of�shocks�and�stresses?
How do transformational�changes�relate to anticipatory, absorptive or adaptive capacities?
what is the level of evidence?
Theory�of�Change
theory of change reflections
Has the project revised�its�Theory�of�Change?
75ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� annex 7
Annex�7:�MRR�deep�dive�informant�list
BRES
name of interviewee role organisation
erik dirkx braced chief of Party welthungerhilfe (HQ)
Harouna sonde braced m&e officer welthungerhilfe (HQ)
igor ouedraogo Head of m&e welthungerhilfe (HQ)
ouedraugo abdoulaye director welthungerhilfe (Field office)
bougouma Hamado Programme officer welthungerhilfe (Field office)
ouedraogo issouf Programme officer welthungerhilfe (Field office)
ouedraogo baukary Programme officer welthungerhilfe (Field office)
Zango samaile Programme officer welthungerhilfe (Field office)
edouard ilboundo director direction Provinciale d’agriculture (kourweogo Province)
ouattara siaka m&e officer direction Provinciale d’agriculture (kourweogo Province)
domo sanata director direction Provinciale d’environnement (kourweogo Province)
Paulin yougbare’ mayor secretary general mairie de bousse’
dieudonne’ ouefraogo director direction de la Protection des végétaux et du conditionnement
sawadogo abdel wuhab director of Phytosanitary interventions
direction de la Protection des végétaux et du conditionnement
claudine banissi Plant clinic coordinator direction de la Protection des végétaux et du conditionnement
karim kabre Plant clinic manager direction de la Protection des végétaux et du conditionnement
alexandre al-Hassan kabre ceo ecodata
yacouba ouedraogo director direction Provinciale d’agriculture (bam Province)
kayaba sidiki ouedraogo director direction Provinciale d’agriculture (sanmantenga Province)
Zakaria ouandaogo director direction Provinciale d’environnement (sanmantenga Province)
abondon ouedraogo director direction Provinciale d’environnement (bam Province)
mr baki director agence nationale de météorologie
mr sadouka Former director agence nationale de météorologie
nikiema traore adiza Programme officer Fédération wend yam
sayadogo boureima m&e officer Fédération wend yam
bruno Parkarda interim director direction régionale d’agriculture (oubritenga)
youssouf coulibaly regional coordinator for rice Production
direction régionale d’agriculture (oubritenga)
ouattara mori director service Provincial des etudes et des statistiques sectorielles (oubritenga)
mohamadi congo second assistant to mayor mairie de nagreongo
bagagnan mady secretary general to mayor mairie de nagreongo
76ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� annex 7
name of interviewee role organisation
bonkoungou oumaron agent Fédération wend yam
yacouba nango director direction régionale d’agriculture (Plateau central)
rasmata sondo director Per
khaled yao m&e officer Per
charles garba director association de développement sougri nooma
emmanuel bamogo director radio Zama Fm
souleymane ouedraogo director radio nerwaya
samuel bamogo director radio manegda
Leonard kinda director radio voix des Lacs
Livestock�Mobility
name role organisation
soumaila Fomba Programme officer acting for Life
amadou togola coordinator icd, mali
youssouf boubacar cisse coordinator gaJeL sudu baba, niger
Lompo Paripouguini President of ecoPare & President of the eastern region regional council
ecoPare
ouoba victor Focal Point ecoPare
diallo salou President of recoPa recoPa east
maiga boubacar coordinator recoPa east
somda beor technical assistant recoPa east
thiombiano idrissa accountant recoPa east
ouattara Lagansani eiPc President and mayor of sideradougou eiPc
diallo amadou coordinator recoPa ouest recoPa west
sidibe Fousseini Facilitator & Field supervisor recoPa west
modibo oumarou coordinator aPess
dicko amadou Finance officer aPess
aliou kane coordinator gnaP, mauritania
gilles vias coordinator vsF-b
annabelle Powell-guillaume Programme officer acting for Life
77ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� annex 7
MAR
name role organisation
negusu aklilu braced chief of Party Farm africa
befekadu ayele braced m&e officer Farm africa
amsalu amane braced Project coordinator Farm africa
assefa Hailu braced deputy chief of Party mercy corps
dereje agizie braced Project coordinator mercy corps
tesfayesus alemayehu braced m&e Field officer mercy corps
banki dodj braced Project implementation expert mercy corps
birhanu tonja municipality officer arba minch municipality
eyasu assaro vice-secretary, municipal cooperative office arba minch municipality
getachew tesfaye municipality officer, women and children’s affairs arba minch municipality
belaynedh bade municipality officer, women and children’s affairs arba minch municipality
tewodros tesfaye municipality officer, women and children’s affairs arba minch municipality
emebet demelash municipality officer, women and children’s affairs arba minch municipality
kalkidan debebe regional officer, environmental Protection arba minch regional nrm offices
sinatehu regional officer, agriculture and nrm officer arba minch regional nrm offices
ato melaku Zone district manager arba minch mFi
ato mengistu branch manager arba minch mFi
ato belayneh geze Head of Fm arba minch radio Fm
ato wondewosen manager south omo mFi
tsegaye ketema director of development of meteorological services nma
tarekgn abera braced Point of contact at nma nma
solomon Zegeye insurance manager nyala insurance
okelo Fekadu roro director ide
daniel Fikeryesus ceo echnoserve
78ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� annex 7
PROGRESS
name role organisation
John burns Programme director mercy corps kenya
diyad Hujali Programme coordinator and Learning manager/Policy lead
mercy corps kenya
Florence randani m&e officer mercy corps kenya
clare ondere Finance officer mercy corps kenya
Professor Jesse njoka Professor, african drylands institute for sustainability
university of nairobi
Peter kamande Programme manager, asid Programme university of nairobi
ubah kahiye wajir Programme manager mercy corps kenya
Hassan Haji gender officer mercy corps kenya
amina market systems Lead mercy corps kenya
noor abdullahi market systems officer mercy corps kenya
abdi yaro branch manager crescent takaful sacco, wajir
abdirahman adan edow chief of staff wajir county government, department of environment & energy
dr ahmed abdikadir director wajir county government, department of environment & energy
Fauzia gedi climate change Fund administrator wajir county government, department of environment & energy
yussuf dayib chief officer wajir county government, department of water
omar Jibril director wajir county government, department of ict
daud yakub guliye director, Livestock Production wajir county government, department of Livestock
abdirahman omar osman
chief officer special Programmes donor coordination and resilience
osman sheikh dahir Programme manager wasda
amal mohamed braced Programme officer wasda
Jimale mohamed county officer aLdeF/ada consortium
ahmed Jelle deputy director wajir county government, department of gender & social services
Farhiya rashid gender officer wajir county government, department of gender & social services
nimo mohamed assistant director wajir county government, department of gender & social services
sophie gedi civil society representative gender technical working group
ismail abdullahi nrm team Leader, braced mercy corps kenya
Halima kadir director wajir community radio
Hassan bashir managing director crescent takaful sacco
79ROUTES�TO�RESILIENCE:�INSIGHTS�FROM�BRACED�TO�BRACED-X� annex 8
Annex�8:�Policy�Areas�of�ChangeArea�of�Change�1:�Awareness,�knowledge�and�understanding�of�targeted�
stakeholders�around�key�policy�issues
Area�of�Change�2:�Representation�or�participation�of�key�stakeholders�in�policy�
dialogues�or�policy-making�processes
Area�of�Change�3:�Connections,�networks�or�relationships�made�that�connect�
with�and�influence�policy�actors�or�processes
Area�of�Change�4:�Discourse�of�policy�actors�or�public�discourse�around�key�
policy�issues
Area�of�Change�5:�Changes�in�policy�content�or�policy-making�processes
BRACED has built the resilience of up to 8.5 million vulnerable people
against climate extremes and disasters. It has done so through a four year, UK
Government funded programme, which has supported 120 organisations, working
in 15 consortiums, across 13 countries in East Africa, the Sahel and Southeast Asia.
Uniquely, BRACED has also had a Knowledge Manager consortium.
The Knowledge Manager consortium is led by the Overseas Development Institute
and includes the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, the Asian Disaster
Preparedness Centre, ENDA Energie, Itad and Thomson Reuters Foundation.
The views presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent
the views of BRACED, its partners or donor.
Readers are encouraged to reproduce material from BRACED Knowledge Manager Reports for
their own publications, as long as they are not being sold commercially. As copyright holder, the
BRACED programme requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. For online
use, we ask readers to link to the original resource on the BRACED website.
The BRACED Knowledge Manager generates evidence and learning on
resilience and adaptation in partnership with the BRACED projects and
the wider resilience community. It gathers robust evidence of what works
to strengthen resilience to climate extremes and disasters, and initiates
and supports processes to ensure that evidence is put into use in policy
and programmes. The Knowledge Manager also fosters partnerships to
amplify the impact of new evidence and learning, in order to significantly
improve levels of resilience in poor and vulnerable countries and
communities around the world.
Published September 2019
Website: www.braced.org Twitter: @bebraced Facebook: www.facebook.com/bracedforclimatechange
Cover image: Rwanda Green Fund / Flickr
Designed and typeset by Soapbox, www.soapbox.co.uk